I’m a professional journalist (at a suburban daily for the next couple months, then launching a topical startup). Seems to me that different MSM outlets have different rules and standards for participation, and so do different independent blogs. Which is great.

Cindy makes a good point that startups’ tendency to interact with readers leads to more conversations.

But Cindy, I’d also argue that anyone who is actively “working through solutions” at a public meeting can’t be reliably objective about any solutions that might emerge from said meeting. That’s fine if your relationship with readers doesn’t rely entirely on objectivity.

I think this also plays into the distinction I’m trying to draw between MSM-style *politics* coverage designed to not piss off anyone in a broad, heterogeneous audience, and startup-style *policy* coverage, where the narrow audience has more shared interests and is much more likely to coalesce around whatever solutions might arise from Cindy’s detailed coverage.

Do you consider yourselves journalists (professional, citizen, whatever) or community bloggers?

If you are a reporter who happens to be making a living reporting for a local website with advertising rather than a sugar daddy newspaper, then you most certainly are like other reporters observing and writing what you determine to be important – from your perspective. Community blogging by people who were participating in civic life before blogging is a whole different ball game.

Hyperlocal sites filling a reporting gap left vacant by failing newspapers is certainly a trendy topic. Communities working through issues together online hasn’t been getting as much attention. In our case, we are honest about being members of our community participating in our civic life and writing about it. Community blogging is unique. We can describe all the facts and details from a meeting and interject the opinions expressed at the meeting, including our own. We’re very clear about it.

Perhaps all local blogs and websites shouldn’t be lumped together. I agree that community members blogging about their experiences is different from reporters on a local commercial website reporting. I would never go around preaching that every local web address should be the same. They are not, nor would I want them to be.

“[R]eporters have to remain objective but I also must remain objective. The difference is my freedom to participate in the discussions as a citizen while the reporter sits next to me mum. In one public work session with large maps and lots of ideas from a group, I could participate and put my ideas forward, change my thinking, and really work on solutions which I could then share on the blog.”

I believe mainstream reporters and hyperlocalists should behave only as witnesses (not participants) at civic meetings and news events. Participation gives the perception of bias, even if the hyperlocalist maintains objectivity in reporting the story.

Ironically (maybe irrationally), I believe mainstream and hyperlocal reporters should interact with readers in the online comments section (or whatever feedback forum is available in that hyperlocal medium). To me, that’s the proper place for reporters to divulge their opinions, instead of during the civic meeting, where the opinion becomes part of the event and possibly the story.

Yes reporters have to remain objective but I also must remain objective. The difference is my freedom to participate in the discussions as a citizen while the reporter sits next to me mum. In one public work session with large maps and lots of ideas from a group, I could participate and put my ideas forward, change my thinking, and really work on solutions which I could then share on the blog. The reporter got some quotes from the organizers and did a fine story but my pieces are part of the process of discussing and working through our local concerns — as you’ve noted in this post.