Thanks for this thoughtful post, Jen. I think of these two approaches - broadcasting and engaging - like tiers in social media. Broadcasting is the easier, sometimes the beginner step. Real engagement is much more difficult, and not only because it requires more time and effort. It also requires us journalists to think differently about our audience. We have to think of them as contributors and partners in this process of information gathering. That transition can be difficult both for newsrooms and for individual journalists.

That’s partly because the broadcasting alone can be quite successful - everyone’s happy to see referral traffic from Facebook jump, so there’s not that much pressure to do more. Ultimately, I think those news organizations will be successful five or 10 years from now that manage to create a community around their products, to make readers feel like they’re part of the effort, like the journalism is for them and with them. Luckily we already have some great examples of this mindset, like the Guardian or the Washington Post, which can serve as inspiration and examples for those of us trying to push the envelope.

P.S.: In terms of practicality, I don’t define “engaging” as responding to every reply or comment. But there are stories where reader’s input can make a huge difference, where it’s really worth reaching out to the community and asking for input. Identifying and pursuing those stories is what I think makes engagement work. So I don’t think you need to feel bad if you don’t respond to every message, as long as you take the feedback into consideration and draw on it to help shape your reporting.

jenclass:

I’ve been juggling my thoughts on broadcasting versus engaging as journalists… I think I’ve finally been able to get it into words. Let me know what you think.