Web Forum for the Missourian

I sent along this pitch to Columbia Missourian Executive Editor Tom Warhover after a conversation in our Advanced Reporting class. The message was sent around to other editors and the class, so I figured I'd make everyone privy to the pitch, so...dig in, if you feel inclined...

"Tom,
I thought my pitch for the web forum might be better heard and understood if I just typed it out.

The forum would be a fairly simple set up, where larger sections (much like the paper itself) such as Muse or News or Sports would feature more precise threads below them. The more precise threads would be comprised of the stories written and threads created by staff and community members about things that were not direct stories in the paper.

If someone were to read a story, they could still click on the “comment” link, but instead of posting a random comment to the story and that being the end of it, it would lead to a comment section on the forum. This way, instead of just leaving a comment, these people could read this article and go to a conversation, or, if they choose, leave just a regular comment within the forum and be done with it. In this way, stories we wrote could have conversations among the public about the news in them and the reporter could get involved and answer questions, clarify, and possibly even get tips from people who might suggest a person or place that would be very relevant to a story follow-up that the reporter and editors never thought of.

Now, people who create their own posts would be able to create them about anything. Instead of all the talk about the location of the new High School falling under one story’s thread, someone could make a thread where all that conversation could occur. Plus, instead of having people making comments on stories on our site, then the Trib’s, then another one, well…having an open forum on our site would make it the place to be for these convos and also a great resource for the whole community. Also, within these threads that are made but not directly linked to a story, we could do our critiques and get public feedback (i.e. “Why wasn’t the river story on the front page?”) and answer them (i.e. “We felt the issue of street taxes was more important for these reasons…”) and then they could continue the convo (i.e. “I see your point, however, I think the river story would have been better there for these reasons…”). We don’t have to listen to and obey all that they say, but it would certainly give us more perspective of what the people want and need than just discussing it amongst ourselves in the office.

The only downside/catch is that the forum is a privilege and not a right. If people were coming on and posting lewd topics and such, they would have to be banned and would not be able to post. The forum would always be free to read, so people who didn’t sign up (sign up would be done by registering a user name which could be fake or real and registering an email address) could still read the content, but people who would misuse it wouldn’t deter mature folks who cared about Columbia.

But in the end, I think this is an idea that would make us a very accessible publication with a level of clarity and transparency that we would struggle to deliver with just print and Internet coverage. It can be a place where people come to get all their news, by reading stories and peoples’ comments, and it can simply be an online community center where the people who care enough can get online and really participate in civic discussions with their fellows citizens and with the journalists who write about them. Think of it almost as an on-going online town meeting where the floor is open to everyone.

During my summer internship at Wizard Magazine (an admittedly nerdy publication) we were encouraged to pay close attention to our web forum and post frequently. Granted, our subject matter was usually tamer with comics and movies being the order of the day, but still, we created threads to feedback on the last issue and on stories and even heard many suggestions for what we could do better, or if we were getting criticisms, we could explain ourselves. Here is a link to that forum, just so you can get a feel of what I am thinking…

http://wizarduniverse.invisionzone.com/
It was a great experience using it (I still do, by the way) and it was a great tool for us to communicate with our readers. It is a very friendly forum, and one covering Columbia’s issues could get heated and would need moderation by our staff to make sure conversation didn’t get hateful, but it could be the best thing we ever did to really hear what our community has to say.

Ok, hopefully that all made sense. I just didn’t feel like people really got what I was going for today and I wanted to make sure that I at least got to present to you the idea that was in my head. I hope it all came out cohesively enough for you to get what I mean."

I think something like this is long overdue for press outlets. We preach conversation and transparency, it's time to practice it more fully in ways we haven't before.