|
|||||||||
|
January/February 1999 | Contents
The Digital Watercooler Gets Hot
Online Discussion by John Annese Internet discussion lists are supposed to serve as sanctuaries, virtual communities where people with similar interests can talk shop. That's true for journalists, who have a wide range of places to connect with each other online. The two most popular general journalism discussion lists are SPJ-L, loosely affiliated with the Society of Professional Journalists, and IRE-L, maintained by Investigative Reporters & Editors. And on good days, their value is clear. A list member asks how to find sources on a specific topic and responses from fellow members pour in. A young sports reporter asks for help in dealing with a belligerent coach and gets useful advice. Someone starts a discussion on whether journalism should be considered a craft or a profession and various perspectives are e-mailed in for days. "There are some very bright and thoughtful people on there," says Jack Lail, a volunteer who maintains the 1,000-member SPJ-L. But on both SPJ-L and IRE-L, useful discussions can be drowned out by heated arguments, political speeches, or wild topics (recently, a phantasmagorical CIA plot to assassinate Princess Di). Since both lists are open to anyone who wants to subscribe, they serve as forums for amateur essayists. And private wars can break out. "I really wish there was some intelligence filter," Lail says. "People are like lemmings. Some of them can't help but follow some nut off some path." What's the solution? Many list regulars advocate a more controlled membership. After receiving several complaints regarding clutter and off-topic messages on IRE-L, Investigative Reporters and Editors started another, IREPLUS-L, open only to the members of IRE. Yet since it began in August, IREPLUS-L has received just seventeen messages from its 165 members. It's a virtual ghost town. Michael Ravnitzky, a law student who contributes to a number of e-mail lists, including IRE-L, feels that some of them are "like a newspaper without an editor." Ravnitzky believes that those who run them should take a more active role. But Lail, the director of the online media division of the Knoxville News-Sentinel, prefers a "loose hand." He intervenes only "when they get after each other personally." Gail Hulden, research director at The Oregonian and a member of five journalism mailing lists, says she has been so annoyed at IRE-L that she's left it twice. But she's also rejoined it twice, feeling that, on balance, it is too valuable to abandon. Others agree. Barbara Croll Fought, an associate professor of broadcast journalism at Syracuse, runs two lists herself and points out, "I don't think people need to feel obligated to read each message." To subscribe to SPJ-L, send an e-mail to listserv@lists.psu.edu. In the body of the message type: subscribe spj-l first name last name. For IRE-L, the address is: listproc@lists.missouri.edu. Then: subscribe ire-l first name last name. Below are some of the more specialized journalism discussion lists, which have the virtue of being more focused, but may be a bit more bland. CARR-L:
CARR-L, short for Computer-Assisted Reporting and Research, has been praised as a welcome alternative to the chaos of SPJ-L and IRE-L. Many of the posts on CARR-L are questions and answers on where to find online sources for stories; the rest deal with technological issues. The list contains little philosophical and political debate since, according to owner Elliott Parker, "it was specifically set up, not for students, and not for wannabes, but for the working journalist." CCR-L:
This relatively small list is meant as a forum for crime and court reporters, and it very rarely strays off that topic. Members often help each other find sources, or share experiences with reporters working on similar stories. This list may be quiet compared to some of the others listed here, but it's a useful tool nonetheless. COPYEDITING-L
Despite the high number of messages passing through this list each day, members concentrate on the nuances of language and writing style, not on hot political topics. And the mostly useful, often quirky discussions very rarely result in name-calling and viciousness. "We've never had a flame war that I'm aware of," says Bill Blinn, one of the list's co-owners. FOI-L
This moderately-populated list, run by Barbara Croll Fought, an associate journalism professor at Syracuse, is a resource for those with Freedom of Information questions. Messages to the list often fall into two categories: updates on FOI issues and legislation, and cries for help from members unable to extract information from unwilling government agencies. NICAR-L
Like CARR-L, this list focuses on the topic of computer-assisted reporting. NICAR-L, run by the National Institute of Computer-Assisted Reporting, concentrates on the technical aspects of the field, with discussion topics like "The trouble with intranets" and "IF functions" dominating the group. Journalists looking for online sources can often find help here, but the list caters to those with a seriously technological bent. JOURNET-L
Although JOURNET-L is meant to be a place where journalism professors can discuss the academic issues in the field, reporters and students also contribute a variety of thoughts and questions. JOURNET-L also receives a number of posts on available journalism jobs and internships, making it a valuable resource for those just starting out. ONLINE-NEWS/ONLINE WRITING:
These two fairly active lists, run by online news guru Steve Outing, focus on the fields of interactive news media and online content. One fascinating feature of Online-Writing is the "regional networking page" on Outing's main Web site (www.planetarynews.com), which provides a list of contacts for members who want to connect with each other. YNGRPTR:
This fledgling list geared towards journalists just starting their careers has had only a handful of posts since it began in June of 1998, but it has the potential to grow. The recent appearance of a dreaded "MAKE MONEY FAST" letter suggests that the list needs tighter supervision. |
||||||||