Think of an “investigative newsroom.”
If you’re like most people, you’re probably imagining a sea of desks, the spaces between them populated by harried, hard-bitten reporters. Most of them are men, and all of them are fluorescent-lit, intensity-filled, and surrounded by the sounds of clattering keyboards and high-decibel phone conversations.
Now imagine a reporter, seated at a table at a neighborhood coffee shop, having some tea, using the wifi, chatting with passers-by, typing on her laptop. Oh, and doing some I-reporting.
The former image—forged in our minds both by film (thanks, All the President’s Men) and by the bustling, behemoth realities of the omnibus newspaper—is increasingly an endangered one. Newsrooms are folding; I-teams are disintegrating. Closer to the truth these days is perhaps the latter image—embodied, last Thursday, by the reporters at California Watch, the Berkeley-based investigative startup.
After a move displaced the California Watch staff from their offices last week, leaving them to work remotely (away from each other and—significantly—away from their office phones), they decided to make the best of an otherwise bitter situation: to take the opportunity to “fan out around the state” and “work in coffee shops with WiFi access.” They announced the plan—complete with a Google map detailing the location of each reporter’s chosen coffee shop—on californiawatch.org’s “Inside the Newsroom” blog, and sent the message out to their followers and fans on Facebook and Twitter.
The “Open Newsroom” project, as they dubbed it, was “an opportunity for the public to stop by, share a cup of coffee, and maybe give us some story ideas,” says Mark Katches, California Watch’s editorial director. The experiment, he wrote in the project’s announcement, is “part of a goal to connect with readers and get out of the office. We’re hoping it will be a regular part of what we do.”
In fact, “it’s always something that I’ve wanted to try,” Katches says of the get-out-into-the-community approach to traditional muckraking. “It may be a little gimmicky,” he says of the project, “but the principle is a really strong and sound one.”
While Thursday’s experiment itself had mixed results—“It was a pretty uneventful day at our first Open Newsroom,” Katches noted afterward, “although I have to say the lemon scone at Royal Ground Coffee was pretty tasty”—it’s one that California Watch will be trying again. And again. And again. At the moment, being such a new presence in the community, Katches admits, “We don’t have, I don’t think, the type of connection with readers that is going to have long lines of people at the coffee shop coming to see us.”
But: they’re hoping to. As word gets out about California Watch’s existence—and as the outlet amplifies that word through an active presence on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media—its audience is only growing.
And growing as well is the sensibility that a ‘newsroom’ need not be a place so much as a process—and a space both for journalists and the public they serve. The newsroom/café model is already being experimented with in the Czech Republic; the “Open Newsroom” project hints that it may soon be a more common phenomenon in the U.S. As news, generally, becomes an increasingly local affair—and as mobility becomes an increasingly common feature of contemporary life—newsrooms will evolve, as well. And that evolution just might involve a corner table, a scone, and a strong cup of coffee.

Pretty glib, credulous reporting here -- typical recently of CJR. What kind of as coffee shop will tolerate having its retail space used as a workplace by a gang of people?
#1 Posted by Harrison, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 04:20 PM
Most kinds of coffee shops, actually. (At most cafes I've been to recently, there are more laptops out on tables than there are books, magazines, or, indeed, coffee cups. And those laptops are connected to wifi that's provided by...the cafes.)
And it's not a "gang of people" overrunning the cafes; in this case, individual reporters (or, in a couple of cases, pairs of reporters) chose separate, and geographically scattered, coffee shops to work at. Hence, the Google map mentioned above.
#2 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 04:44 PM
Some coffeeshops are dropping people off of wifi after an hour. I wonder if story bylines will appear with "powered by Peet's Coffee." I'm seeing underwriting potential here. Personally, I need the buzz of coffee to write, but I find it hard to concentrate amidst the buzz buzz buzz of a busy cafe.
#3 Posted by JulieDrizinMQ2, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 04:50 PM
Sounds like it was a nice try. I appreciate your honest reporting in saying that it was "uneventful". Don't stop experimenting or trying new things. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
#4 Posted by Rob Gordon, CJR on Thu 28 Jan 2010 at 12:25 AM
I am a deputy editor of a newspaper in East London, a small coastal town in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. I am fascinated by the idea of an open newsroom.
As a newspaper we are also facing huge challenges in terms of connecting with our core audience and who knows maybe the open newsroom idea could actually work for us this side.
Keep it up California Watch and keep us posted on the developments.
#5 Posted by Bongani, CJR on Thu 28 Jan 2010 at 05:31 AM
A matter that needs investigated
On case#VA107160
People Vs buddy lee George
Los Angeles superior court norwalk California division S
Judge the Honorable Roger Ito
Los Angeles county district attorney Kang.
A case that can be proved as unconstitutional due to the following
1.) I was denied my due process rights.
2.) the district attorney had me charged with prison priors and strikes that I did not have and it was not until after the verdict did she admit her mistakes.
3.) I was denied to confront witnesses I supoened 5 officers and only one showed up.
4.) the only witness that showed up was detective hakala from Whittier police department he was the lead detective and expert witness.
5.) there was bias with the processing of evidence he used his own lab.
6.) he lied under oath by saying he removed the drugs before the pre search video because he had a dog.
7.) the evidence in the case had been destroyed before the trial
Evidence was destroyed 5-29-09
The verdict was read on 8-15-09
8.) henry salcidos law firm that represented me right before the trial caused a conflict of interest by violating attorney client privilege by having a meeting with the city of la mirada without my permission nor knowledge were he discussed my case were he was convinced by the city saying I should take a deal under the condition I move out of la mirada when I get out of prison.
9.) Henry salcido also told me at one point he didn't care If I was innocent or guilty I should take a deal.
10.) he also told me at one point he was best friends with steve Cooley and if I gave him $180.000 and sign over the deed to our home he could make the case disappear.
11.) their was two retired district attorneys that were working for Henry salcidos law firm that were also over familiar with sheriffs and narcotics department that were involved in my case.
12.) through the whole case the la mirada mayor and council members had law enforcement harassing me their was about 300 or more calls made to law enforcement with the intent to have me harassed
13.) I can also prove false imprisonment.
14.) I was charged with possession for sales when no drugs were ever found to be in my possessing neither was any money ever recovered and according to the detective he found $13 dollars worth of drugs in our home all together in separate bags and only one had been tested the second one was never tested.
15.) it was unconstitutional for detective hakala to target me when their was 5 occupants living in our home at the time.
16.) the search warrant he used to get in our home the day he supposedly found the drugs was stamped denied.
17.) the second search warrant had a type -o- error and the name on the search warrant was Walter Eugene Farris a guy that I don't know and neither did any one els that lived in our home and he had never been in our home.
18.)The attorney that represented me during the trial had not been given enough to to familiarize her self with my case the judge refused to give her time to overlook the case.
19.) after we picked the jurors one of the jurors was prejudice he said no matter what he would find me guilty because he hates drug dealers the judge still allowed juror # 19 to hang out with all the other jurors until he was replaced.
The following needs to be investigated
1.) violation of due process rights
2.) my state and federal rights were violated.
3.) false imprisonment
4.) harassment
5.) negligent
6.) malpractice
7.) wrongful conviction
8.) officer misconduct
9.) judicial misconduct
10.) cruel and unusual punishment. Email below evidence when the evidence had been destroyed a email from detective hakala to district attorney kang.
11.) the city of la mirada offered to buy our home at cost saying under th
#6 Posted by Buddy George , CJR on Mon 13 Dec 2010 at 12:41 PM