First off I think that Outing did a good job of viewing all sides of each of the 11 layers. He didn't just focus on the good, easy things. He also acknowledged the drawbacks of each layer.
Opening up to public comment is a great idea. Hearing what readers think and want should be every journalists dream. Without a reader, journalists don't have a job. Keeping what's important to readers important to the newspaper shows readers respect. I hadn't thought of letting readers comment on classifieds, calendars, letters to the editor, etc. I think that is an innovative idea because, again, it shows what the reader is thinking. Outing brings up the problem of innapropriate content which is a valid point. It is always going to be there though. Journalists are threatened by citizen journalism because if anyone can just write news, what's the point of going to school and getting a job in journalism?
The citizen add-on reporter is kind of sketchy. It's good to know from people in the neighborhoods what is going on but at the same time it could get sloppy. The people doing the breaking in and stealing could be reading the articles too. It could become a safety issue for the citizen journalists.
Open-source reporting has some advantages. I like the example of getting interview questions from readers. The more people a journalist has asking questions, the more information he/she will get. Having a reader do the actual reporting may get tedious and expensive if he/she is offered cash pay.
Offering blogging websites is an excellent idea. People love debating back and forth between other "everyday" people. I don't like the selective approach because even if someone is a good writer, it doesn't mean he/she has anything to say. And someone who is a bad writer may have many good points. Also using blogs that compliment what the news staff covers may lead to bias. Outing recognizes that many citizen blogs are short-lived. It takes someone who is really invested in responding with ideas to keep a consistent blog. I don't think money is a good initiative to keep a blog going for a long period of time.
Newsroom transparency blogs seem to be a good idea because it gives readers more knowledge about the process. If readers question or complain, it could give them a reason for how things are done.
The stand-alone citizen journalist site (edited) would be good for communities. Yes, most things aren't interesting to many people but they could be interesting to a few. However, editing it defeats the purpose of a stand-alone citizen journalist site. Plus, it seems that even if the site is unedited, it's still edited to some degree.
The stand-alone citizen journalist site (unedited) seems to be a better fit for citizen journalism. I like the idea of reporting misconduct and having a certain amount of times it can happen before the article is taken off the site. Many people can get heated and write innapropriate and irrelevant things. I also agree with not screening every single article because of liability.
Adding a print edition seems like a waste to me. The only good thing I see coming from it is money. I think the people who are responding online are mostly a younger generation. They are already responding online and, being part of a younger generation, I think going online is faster and easier. Also, I like the two-way aspect of the internet. Isn't that the whole point of moving forward with citizen journalism?
The hybrid journalism seems to be working for OhmyNews in South Korea. But I am unsure of how the U.S. would respond to it. The U.S. tends to be more close-minded. I also like that OhmyNews has created an international edition. Again, I think the U.S. is too stuck up to do that. But is is a great idea. I also feel that journalists may think, "Why did I go to school for this?" If any citizen can just write for a paper, it could make a professional journalist feel animosity.
I don't like the idea of integrating citizen and professional journalism under one roof in hard copy. It would be great online because it is innovative. It would also be good to have the professional journalist's article in hard copy and then the citizen journalist's article on the website. Many people may not want to go to the website as well as reading the paper which could be a drawback.
Wiki journalism works for Wikipedia but many professors have strong feelings against Wikipedia. This makes me think that Wiki journalism may have the same negative reaction. It is a good idea as long as the articles are constantly monitored for innapropriate or untrue content. It is good to have on a community level especially with the example of obituaries. It creates an easier platform for people to write about and to each other.
Overall, I think citizen journalism is a good thing. However, it is very progressive and a younger generation will probably have to accept it first. It may be a slow moving process while people are getting used to it.
