Institutions or Infrastructure? The Real Opportunity for Online Journalism and Democracy

This is a guest post by Josh Wilson of Newsdesk.org, a commercial-free, non-politicized news source covering important but overlooked issues from around the world.

Want to save the news? Stop worrying about journalism institutions, and start worrying about journalists.

Much of the discussion about media and journalism is about institutions and their relationships with citizens. The issues — that journalism institutions must be transparent, accountable, and provide real value and relevance to the community — are clear enough.

The problem is, the Internet is not about institutions — by which I mean social organizations with a gestalt that is singular and self-prioritizing. Rather, it's about peer relationships — the egalitarian multiplicity with common goals and mutual needs.

This idea of peer-to-peer relationships is built into the physical architecture of the Internet itself. When you talk about institutions as singular, therefore, you talk about intermediaries that more often than not get in the way of peer relationships.

You don't need an institution to practice transparent, accountable, valuable and relevant journalism. You do generally need the facilitation that an institution can, but doesn't always, provide.

And there's the rub: Institution and practice are quite separate — indeed, in today's media ecology, they are also unequal, which is downright poisonous to the peer relationships that animate the Internet as a radically inclusive democratic medium.

Centers of Gravity
The strength of the singular institution is beyond question: It has a superabundance of gravitas and resources. Its administrative infrastructure makes it attractive to capital. Its stellar public profile makes it a beacon for the best and the brightest. Institutions do indeed achieve great things, and are leaders of our society.

Yet, despite this admirable stature, the practice of journalism is all too often subordinate to the needs of the institution. Whether it's a dowager newspaper, a new media interloper, or a buttoned-down journalism school, a fundamental driver of the crisis of journalism is “the institution” itself, which can underserve democracy and communities by hamstringing their social and financial capital:

• People: Institutions are often exclusive/meritocratic agencies rather than inclusive/democratic systems. Whether it's hiring practices, financial disbursements, intern placements, or simply deciding who gets to write the front-page stories, institutions use self-reinforcing systems of referral and affirmation to maintain their position, and support the people and practices they know. This results in risk aversion, hierarchies, groupthink, "old boy networks," and a revolving door between commercial entities and civic agencies that stifles diversity, vision and innovation.
• Money: Institutions have overriding budgetary issues and needs — usually in the form of expensive facilities, top-heavy executive salaries and sprawling administrative support systems, not to mention, in the commercial sector, shareholder demands for profitability — that trump the needs of the newsroom and the journalism practitioners. The hollowed-out newsrooms of American newspapers offer increasingly mute testimony to this profound institutional failure.

Infrastructure as Grassroots

The answer to these problems is in the very architecture of the Internet as, again, not institutional, but peer- and community-driven.

While it’s useful to talk about journalism institutions, and important to make the most of the strengths of these institutions, one mustn’t neglect the actual practice of journalism, as undertaken by an empowered citizenry. This includes working journalists who are indeed citizens before they are part of any institution.

As David Cohn of Spot.Us says, journalism is a process, not a product. It’s that process — that PRACTICE — of journalism by individuals and communities, more than by any institution, that defines the opportunity for open, transparent, inclusive democracy in the era of the World Wide Web.

Consider three factors that profoundly affect the practice of journalism by citizens and communities, whether they happen to be part of institutions or not:

• Standards of practice (best practices/quality control)
• Access to resources enabling practice (material, financial and informational)
• Access to networks (to disseminate coverage and related content)

How do institutions influence these factors, both positively and negatively? What other means of social organization — co-ops, associations, affiliate networks, etc. — can leverage these factors on behalf of transparent, accountable, radically inclusive democracy?

While it's fine to talk about reforming institutions, or creating new ones, and to take reasonable and earnest measures toward that end, I can't help but wonder if that's enough. Perhaps we don't need any more institution-building.

Perhaps what our democracy really needs is new journalism infrastructure — decentralized, mutually interdependent, peer-driven infrastructure that can facilitate the work of journalists, citizens and communities wherever and whoever they are.

Practice Makes Perfect

In practice, the medical and scientific fields are peer communities that set standards, vet the work of community members, share resources and help circulate good information and vital civic dialogue.

In practice, open media infrastructure can serve the lone wolf or ronin reporter with a hot lead, as easily as it can support groups of journalists working in parallel on a massive investigative project. The wild proliferation of blogs and blog networks is a clear demonstration of this.

But "the blogosphere" and Web 2.0 alone are not infrastructure enough. An additional layer of open/co-op social organization and capital provision is necessary.

Slowly, we are beginning to see more intent emerge around journalism practice and grassroots infrastructure.

• The Investigative News Network has succeeded in raising money to build a support network and association for independent, investigative news projects around the country. The project emerged following an unprecedented meeting of dozens of independent news producers at the Pocantico Center in New York state.
• Tom Stites, a Boston-based journalist and publisher, has founded the ambitious Banyan Project, which aims to create a consumer co-op linking working journalists directly with the communities they serve. Banyan's profile is on the rise, and it's backed by five-star advisers, including such luminaries as citizen-media pioneer Dan Gillmor and Center for Public Integrity founder Charles Lewis. (Full disclosure: Though perhaps sporting a few merit badges rather than bedecked with stars, I'm a Banyan adviser, too.)
• My own work with Your Local Newsdesk aims to create a producer's co-op for independent journalists and newsrooms, enabling them to share resources, cross-promote and aggregate coverage in a revenue-earning syndication or newswire service. We received a grant from the Ethics & Excellence in Journalism Foundation to move this vision forward.

There are surely more notions like these taking root around the nation and the world. All need money, social capital, attention and resources. They have emerged directly out of the needs of communities and producers, not from the imperative of institutions as social leaders.

They represent new, emerging infrastructure not just for journalism, but for our entire democracy. More power to 'em.