“If editors are looking there for talent,” Pareene explained in an email, “I think they’ll continue to read the site the same way I still do, which is by reading the posts and ignoring everything beneath them.” He does not think editors at more established outlets—say, Salon—will look negatively on Gawker writers’ interactions with commenters. “I don’t really think mixing it up in the comments reflect poorly on a writer unless their comments are themselves poor. It shouldn’t be much more damaging than engaging with people on Twitter.” Newell agreed, writing in an email, “I don’t see any new commenting scheme changing the fact that a staff writing job at Gawker is a great place to write whatever you want and have your byline noticed.”
Kinja could even help writers land jobs. If other news organizations adopt similar comment systems, Gawker writers’ experience with the platform will become a valuable resume booster. But will other outlets follow Gawker’s lead? Denton thinks they will, once Kinja ushers in a new style of “public journalism” that will be more trustworthy than the traditional kind where reporters interview sources in private and then write about it. In Denton’s vision, sources are interviewed in the comments of posts; while a journalist directs the interview, the public gets to grill the source right alongside the professional journalist. “It’s time for the leakers and the moles to bypass the traditional gatekeepers of information; and it’s time for them to be subject to challenge, not just by their pet reporter, but by readers,” Denton said.
As an example of Kinja’s potential benefits, Denton points to Judith Miller’s credulous reporting on Ahmed Chalabi in The New York Times. “One assumes Ahmed Chalabi’s account was subject to some test by Judith Miller of the Times, the chosen vehicle for his propaganda about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction,” he wrote. “But not a sufficiently rigorous examination.” Had Chalabi been publicly interviewed by Miller and her readers in Kinja, Denton implied, maybe he would have been exposed.
Denton’s dream is unlikely to become reality anytime soon. There’s just no reason why sources, particularly sensitive and anonymous ones, would want to be interviewed in public. But it’s still possible that other news organizations will want to adopt Kinja-like commenting systems. It’s no secret that internet comment systems, particularly on mainstream news sites, are broken. Offensive and off-topic comments outnumber interesting comments so that the entire comment system is regarded as toxic and ignored by writers, which then leads to even more terrible comments from unregulated commenters. Sicha sums it up bluntly: “The comment space is treated like shit, so [commenters] act like shit.” Even if it doesn’t revolutionize journalism, Kinja could fix this problem, since it allows writers to control which comments are displayed. If Kinja does work, Gawker writers could find their commenter-engagement skills in high demand.
Clay Shirky, the NYU journalism professor and Future of News guru, thinks other sites should follow Gawker and try out new comment systems. “Gawker has demonstrated that it’s possible to be a large, high-traffic site, and still do considerable experimentation with comments,” he said. Could Kinja even come to the Times one day? Shirky demures. “My New Year’s resolution for 2012,” he explained, “is that when talking about the future of news, I won’t discuss The New York Times.” But, he added, “I think it will work for any place that has a lot of comments and a small group of users who control the comments,” a description that encompasses plenty of news sites and blogs that might look to Gawker writers for help transitioning to a new comment system.
If the rest of the Web follows Denton’s lead, then Kinja may simply be the next platform, like Wordpress or Twitter, that digital-age journalists need to learn. “These jobs we have as writers change, sometimes radically,” Sicha acknowledged. “Online-native outlets could just be the first to blur the line between writers and commenters.” Rather than herald the death of writers, the dawn of Kinja may just indicate that engaging with commenters will soon become a must-have skill.
That Spider-man is a menace.
But he's a saint compared to Gawker!
#1 Posted by J Jonah Jameson, CJR on Fri 6 Jul 2012 at 04:26 PM
"Right now, young reporters often must write, blog, aggregate, and tweet, which leaves little time for actually reporting."
My dear Peter, write, blog, aggregate and tweet IS reporting. Ask any venture capitalist.
Ask any sociopath.
#2 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 11:16 AM
I am impressed by the amount of passion that Mr. Denton has for his new Kinja toy. What great news, that other websites may follow Kinja's lead to make it a leading web platform.
The world needs to know so much more about Hot Pockets and Pokemon.
#3 Posted by former_gawkerer, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 01:03 PM
Having used Kinja since its debut on several Gawker sites, I'm not entirely sure what Denton means by saying that it sorts by most interesting comment. Frankly, I think it's completely unusable--just a very awkward and unnecessary reinvention of threaded commentary. I don't think he should be making decisions about presentation anymore.
#4 Posted by P.F. Bruns, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 08:44 PM
Thank you, Mr. Sterne, for helping me to wrap my senile little brain around Gawker's headline:
"Frontline Documentary About ‘AIDS in Black America’ Still Doesn’t Reveal Who Gave Magic Johnson HIV"
... and, in particular, the meaning of the following excerpts:
"Our source ... said he had other people willing to verify Magic's non-female proclivities on the record. The source would only do so for a large sum of money that was too expensive for Gawker Media, let alone Deadspin ...
"If anyone has any more information about who gave Magic Johnson HIV, please feel free to contact us. I think we can afford to pay more money for this now."
Sounds like they're talkin' sums as large as, oh, $100 at least ! (That's of course in Kinja-Kash so the "winning source" must either divide by 10 for the actual cash value or else go pick out one of them really nifty Gawker t-shirts ...)
But what's money compared to the vast pride -- not to mention the career-boost -- of helping Gawker to scoop the competition on such a pressing and vitally important story ?
Won't be long before America starts singing the praises of this revolution in journalism: "Oh, say, Kinja see ..."
#5 Posted by Gawker Knocker, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 09:32 AM
"Even if it doesn’t revolutionize journalism, Kinja could fix this problem, since it allows writers to control which comments are displayed. "
You mean the way it used to be, where new commenters were vetted by the established, and ignored (pinks) if they were not up to snuff? Where commenters were valued for their insight, and held very closely the concept of 'quality in, quality out? You mean the system Gawker had before Kinja, or PowWow, or AJ for that matter? The system that consistently brought in page views? You mean that system?
#6 Posted by former Gawker current Awl, CJR on Sat 14 Jul 2012 at 04:03 AM
Kinja is awesome and breaking up the clique of starred commenters (most of whom added no value or page views to the site) was a huge boon.
AJ is a vile human being and Neetzan has all the charms of a commentbot, but overall Gawker is ironing out the commenting kinks and actually starting to see their new commenting algorithm pay some dividends. It's truly an egalitarian platform for comments, even if the recent quality of the posts has been awful.
#7 Posted by Hot Pocket, CJR on Sat 14 Jul 2012 at 08:51 AM
"Denton thinks they will, once Kinja ushers in a new style of “public journalism” that will be more trustworthy"
I hope he remembered to pack a lunch for the wait.
But vis a vis employee relations, the impression I get is that Denton prefers to staff his shop with apprentices and journeymen. Once they master their craft sufficiently to feel able to take exception to Mr Denton's management style, they move on to more professional venues.
#8 Posted by Snertly, CJR on Sat 14 Jul 2012 at 03:05 PM
she's terrible and loud, don't like her all all on the show!
#9 Posted by April , CJR on Mon 3 Dec 2012 at 07:54 PM