At last year’s BlogNashville conference, prominent and recently-in-the-news blogger Bill Hobbs mentioned that “if they’re smart,” media outlets will embrace the idea of blogging as a way to talk to their readers and find even more information for their stories—stories which might not actually be finished simply because, say, a newspaper has gone to press. Readers can “report” information via posts and comment threads, creating an online version of a town hall meeting—one that keeps going 24 hours a day.

Because literally anybody with a computer and Internet access can cheaply and quickly become their own publishing house, it’s easy to dismiss citizen journalism as flawed. Each blogger seems more biased than the last, and it’s often difficult for readers to know who or what to believe. But at its core, a blog is simply a piece of technology and, like all pieces of technology, the way it’s used determines the way it’s perceived. While the impression of bloggers as biased, slanderous, unprofessional hacks still carries some weight in light of many bloggers’ sloppy “let’s play with our new toy” approach, as the Rocky Mountain News’ Linda Seebach pointed out at BlogNashville, “bloggers are journalists when they are doing journalism” and there’s no reason why media outlets can’t use blogs to enhance their products, too. For example, stories appearing on YourHub.com also appear in the Rocky Mountain News’ print edition. The paper’s journalists reprint the “most interesting and topical” submissions to the site and, while most of the stories chosen are on the lighter, more hometown-ey side, the paper’s regular, harder news sections could also benefit from this technology.

As Glenn Reynolds—whose Instapundit.com blog is one of the most widely read on the planet—pointed out at BlogNashville, a group of bloggers dedicated to, say, the actions of a local school board could provide vastly more coverage and insight into their topic than any local media outlet—bound by staffing and budget restraints—ever could. A local media outlet could, however, act as an aggregator and editor and incorporate a local blogger group’s work as part of their existing product. If traditional media outlets don’t take advantage these sort strategic partnerships, Reynolds said, consumers will bypass their products even more than they already are.

According to John Burke of the Editor’s Weblog, media outlets like newspapers, for example, “have historically tried to ‘be all things to all people,’ a model that works in a world with limited choice. But circulations have been steadily dropping for decades not because their content is poor, not because their news is irrelevant, but because people have more choice.” While I might take issue with his definitions of quality and relevance, his reference to choice is dead-on.

The major force behind the growth of the Internet is the interactivity buoyed by this choice. If media outlets were to embrace the interactive nature of blogs, they’d find themselves reconnecting with the public and, in turn, regaining some of their lost market share. An editorial page, for example, should not be considered just another piece of “product,” but rather a place to start a conversation. This conversation can serve many purposes—debate, clarification, correction, entertainment, etc.—but perhaps its most important (and previously untapped) purpose is that of a lead generator. Reporters typically get leads from a variety of sources: phone calls, E-mails, letters, conversations, etc. The commenting feature on a blog can provide leads, as well. For example, say a newspaper posts a story online. Readers then chime in with comments, some of which offer additional useful information. The newspaper’s editorial staff monitors the posts, follows up on them as they would with any of their other, more traditional leads and then (if they so choose) uses the leads as the basis for content. Readers, seeing that the paper is using their comments, will continue to offer them, leading to subsequent content and reader traffic. And, you guessed it, even more comments.

This cycle of participation has a subtle, built-in fact-checking feature, as well, as subsequent commenters can also dispel, elaborate and/or further develop previous comments, thus helping editorial staff members to sift through the information presented during the discussion. While it may take awhile for actual printed content to be generated in a paper attempting this approach, it’s certainly worth a try. Especially when you consider its affordability.

The costs associated with citizen journalism are minimal. A blog can be launched for mere pennies and, as is happening in newsrooms all across the globe, the title of “blog moderator” or “blog editor” can easily be added to the existing and (lucky for the media) increasingly younger and tech-savvy staffers’ job descriptions. Even if a media outlet decides to hire a full-time blogger—Britney Gilbert at Nashville’s WKRN (NashvilleIsTalking.com), for example—the benefits from interacting with the public (story generation, relationship building with the public, Web traffic to spur ad sales, etc.) outweigh the costs.

But what about libel? Or dirty talk?

While some bloggers prefer unhindered free speech on their blog comment threads, others (like The Pulse) practice a light level of blog moderation, where unwanted comments (pornographic material, vulgarity, spam, etc.) are deleted in favor of, as Dave Taylor of the Intuitive Life Business Blog says, “relevant, on-topic comments.” Of course, the terms “on-topic” and “relevant” are relative, but most bloggers do practice some sort of policing in order to “keep their blogs clean” and appealing to those who might be otherwise too offended or uncomfortable to participate in the conversation. The goal is to keep the discussion going, and chances are most bloggers that want profitable discussions to take place on their blogs will have to delete some of their visitors’ more scurrilous comments so as not to turn off potential participants right off the bat. (Full disclosure: during The Pulse’s entire online existence, we’ve deleted less than ten total comments from our blog and Web site, combined. And the majority of those were spam.) Like a talk radio host cuts off callers, a blogmaster can “hang up on” commenters as he or she sees fit.

As far as libel is concerned, the jury is still out. A 2003 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that Web site operators and not liable for comments posted on them by other people. Furthermore, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a federal law known as Section 230 “can protect Internet intermediaries from most civil liability for statements by another information content provider.” (A blog commenter is viewed as an “information content provider.”)

While legal issues are still being worked out (expect more and more discussion on this topic), one approach recommended by a commenter on the Connected Internet blog is for the bloggers accused of hosting libelous comments to immediately delete the libelous comments if they are informed that the comments are, indeed, libelous. Of course, if the comments wind up not being libelous—and the blogmaster deletes them—then the blogmaster’s actions could then be deemed libelous. It should be pointed out, however, that instances like this are extremely rare and should, by no means, discourage responsible, news-minded citizenry and reputable media outlets from embracing blogs.

While citizen journalism sounds promising and is developing quite nicely in certain isolated areas, relatively low numbers of reader comments on many of the blogs advocating its use indicate that the concept is not exactly sweeping the nation. And while the concept of citizen journalism was initially proposed, at least in part, as a grassroots alternative to the “shallow reporting” of the “big, ugly, biased” media outlets, it would seem that those same media outlets might be the only organizations prepared to best utilize and promote the concept. Blogs of any kind need to have some marketing force behind them to attract the large, diverse kind of traffic needed to help citizen journalism flourish, and when people think of news, they still think of news outlets—despite what they actually think about them.

Traditional and modern approaches to news gathering and reporting, however, are not mutually exclusive. Traditional, hard-nosed reporting will never die; nor can it if we are to have a healthy society. But the mainstream media needs to abandon its stodgy, adversarial, “news ownership” mentality in favor of an open, transparent and collaborative approach with the consumers they serve and, more importantly, rely upon for every other aspect of their business health. And consumers need to be able to trust their media outlets to hear them. Citizens really don’t want to be reporters. That’s why they spend their money on newspapers, magazines, televisions, radios and Internet service fees: They want the reporters to be the reporters. They only feel like they have to step in when those they rely upon drop the ball. And, taking a look at the number of amateur pundits floating around, the majority of Americans must feel that the media is dropping the ball. But this can—and must—be fixed.

As Rocky Mountain News Editor John Temple illustrates, “Citizen journalism and traditional journalism can move on two tracks, wide tracks to be sure. And they will cross-fertilize each other. Citizens will learn from traditional journalists. And traditional journalists will also learn from what citizens are doing, in part because citizens may be less bound by tradition and thus more open to experimentation.

“And if sometimes the citizens' voices express anger at mainstream news organizations, why is that to be feared? We have learned that scrutiny of news organizations can lead to more accurate and better journalism. I welcome the self-policing aspect of the Web.”

What do you think? Let us know online.