Open Source Reinvention: an interview with Leonard Witt

UPDATE: Witt has been interviewed by Media Giraffe in a podcast interview that you can hear here

Leonard Witt, president of the Public Journalism Network and Robert D. Fowler Distinguished Chair in Communication at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, examined open source software development and how the lessons learned from open source might apply to journalism in a new media environment. His article was published this month in the online magazine First Monday: Constructing a framework to enable an open source reinvention of journalism

I contacted Witt to see if he’d talk to us about his article and how the steps might relate to college media. He graciously agreed. The following is a slightly edited transcript of our conversation, which was conducted using Campfire web-based instant messaging.

*Murley*: I wanted to talk to you about your recent paper on the 14 steps to open-source journalism and how it relates specifically to college media. Could you start by giving a short synopsis of the paper for the readers.

*Witt*: Everyone knows that as the State of the News Media 2004 report first reported we are in the midst of a ephocal change in the news media. The technology is moving faster than that our institutions can change. These are disruptive innovations or disruptive technologies and they most affect institutions that function under long sustainable models. That would include journalism, media studies and communication departments along with the news media in general.

*Murley*: So your paper attempts to provide some steps to address these changes?

*Witt*: Yes, it does. One of the first steps is for everyone to be stop what they are doing and do an attitudinal check and ask: Are we facing up to the new challenges?

*Murley*: Let’s address that. What is your sense of that. Are media organizations doing that?

*Witt*: In the past, folks were in denial. But last year, especially for newspapers, was a turning point. Circulation was, and is dropping, revenues were, and are, dropping. Places like craigslist are stealing away profits, and, as Phil Meyer says, Craig Newmark is the worst kind of competitor because he gives away what others charge for. You can’t compete against that. Last fall the news about circulation drops, job cuts, profits got so bad that that Steve Lovelady (2005), managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review’s CJR Daily blog, would write : “All in all, it has been a bloody week for newspaper journalism. And it’s starting to feel as if the bow of the ship is slipping beneath the water.” More recently the American Journalism Review published a story headlined: Adapt or Die. So finally newspapers and I think the rest of the media get it. Let’s all use the motto: Adapt or Die.

*Murley*: Specifically related to college media organizations (the student newspaper/tv/radio outlet), do you think there is a similar sense of urgency to reinvent the model?

*Witt*: If there isn’t, there should be.

*Murley*: Campus media does have a little different economic model, since it’s often supported through student fees as well as advertising, and the copies are free. So the economic impetus is absent.

*Witt*: True, but what happens when they leave the cocoon. Will they be prepared for the realities that the news media face?

*Murley*: You mention in the paper that newsrooms operate in a “defensive” attitude a lot. Are there any advantages that college media organizations have that would help them “reinvent” that professional organizations might not have? That might overcome that attitude obstacle?

*Witt*: I know campuses around the country are experimenting. I saw that the J-Lab at the University of Maryland is providing grants to about seven university related projects via its New Voices program. These are experimental citizen media projects. The University of Missouri has its MyMissourian project. So stuff is happening.

*Murley*: What about on the student side? I’ve sometimes noticed that students are good at “using” web-related stuff (myspace and facebook, for instance), but j-students don’t necessarily translate that into their newsrooms. Do you have any ideas why the disconnect?

*Witt*: Lots of good things are happening at universities. But the key here is to make sure journalism students, indeed all students, are taught to be open to new ideas. In the past journalism had such a strict code of conduct that it often shut out new ideas. Jay Rosen compared it to a church. In Eric Raymond’s the Cathedral and the Bazaar, he shows how the chaotic bazaar can work better than the cathedral in the world of open access, open source software development. Can our students, can our media operate in the bazaar?

*Murley*: Of the 14 steps you list in your article, which one do you feel is going to be the most difficult for news orgs to deal with? Which one might be the easiest?

*Witt*: To answer your question, about the student side. I would like to see student newsrooms, as well as all newsrooms take that step back and start to see if there is a way to re-organize if not reinvent what they are doing. That’s the idea of the paper. In this new digital world: What is the ecosystem? Should leadership style change? What role will the audience have? What are the new platforms? How should our archives be used? How transparent do we want to be? I would advise them to first ask how they have done things in the past. Point by point. Then ask how might they do each differently in the future. Each newsroom will have different priorities. Different missions. But the idea is to take the time to think. But that’s an obstacle. Newsrooms everywhere are used to putting out stuff quickly. Try using the word ruminate in a newsroom, see where it gets you. But they must stop and think. That’s the first step.

*Murley*: So that might also be the most difficult step?

*Witt*: Correct. But it has to be the first step.

*Murley*: What step might be easiest (or are they all relatively easy after that first big step)?

*Witt*: Without thinking, without a little research, without ruminating, you will have more failded ideas like the LA Times Wikitorial, but that does not mean doing nothing but thinking. It means getting a plan and then letting it fly, knowing that it will have to be flexible.

*Murley*: You spent a lot of time in the paper explaining how open source works. What one lesson from that research would be most important for media leaders to understand to help them make this transition? Which lesson really surprised you?

*Witt*: Give me a second to think about the easiest because I am not sure you can take one step without considering all the other steps. If I have to answer it, it would be attitude. Yes, we know we have to change. Now let’s get started. I think most newsrooms are there. The hard part is the action steps.

*Witt*: Before I started doing the research, I thought, wow, open the door and people will flock to your project and everyone will work cooperatively forever after. Well, that’s not how it works. First each project needs a strong, but welcoming, leader with a vision. That leader must be on top of the project constantly. You have to distinguish between the Sharing Nicely, which means many people doing little tasks at their own time, and more full blown citizen journalism. You have to have protection againt incompetents and malicious content. And that the bazaar works better than the cathedral at least in open source software development. There’s lots of failures among the great successes. In most cases small discrete groups of people do most of the heavy lifting, but lots of people will do little stuff. And they will work best if they truly believe in the project mission’s and that they are not being taken for suckers by someone just taking advantage of their willingness to help.

*Murley*: Sounds like a lot of work to keep on top of things.

*Witt*: It is a lot of work. But look at the returns. Linus Torvalds, one man with a vision, with volunteers from around the world, produced Linux. Jimmy Wales has produced an encyclopedia for the world with Wikipedia. I love Torvalds’ comment that says: “Imagine ten people putting in 1 hour each every day on the project. They put in one hour of work, but because they share the end results they get nine hours of ‘other peoples work’ for free. It sounds unfair: get nine hours of work for doing one hour. But it obviously is not.”

*Murley*: What has been the response to your paper so far? Positive? Negative?

*Witt*: The paper will not be officially published until somewhere around the First Monday in June. But I think like the open source world in general, if I just throw it out there and hope it sticks, I will be disappointed. If I want things to change and to make the paper’s ideas effective, I will have to get proactive. That’s an open source lesson. If any of us have an idea we really believe in and it has a mission that others believe is worthy of working upon, then great things can happen. Miracles really can happen like Wikipedia and Linux.

*Murley*: One final question: Are you optimistic that journalism can make this transition. It is a HUGE paradigm shift.

*Witt*: If the journalism institutions, including the journalism schools, don’t make the shift, something new will replace them. And if they follow the mode of disruptive technologies of the past in Clayton M. Christensen’s words, the new things will be “cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to use.” So what’s wrong with that? Maybe the real paradigm shift is how can we produce quality journalism that is cheaper, simpler, smaller, and more convenient to use.

*Murley*: Anything else to add?

*Witt*: Yes, if we concentrate on the problems that disruptive technologies bring, we will accomplish nothing, except maybe depress our students. If we instead look at the opportunities, then we can help foster students with exciting ideas and visions for the future, a future which they can help shape.

Print Friendly