Some of the commentary about Reddit and the bombings has made it seem as though all of Reddit was engaged in a massive “witch hunt” to find the identity of the suspects in Boston. But the reality is that other parts of Reddit were doing things that were much more valuable, and I think we shouldn’t lose sight of that. So here are a few things that I think Reddit got right:

• It collected verified information: There were multiple Reddit threads that did nothing but curate or aggregate information about the bombings, including links to police reports, news articles and other sources. These threads also helped collect photos and video clips of the Boston marathon that might have contained useful information — and asked anyone with that information to also send those photos and clips to the authorities.
• It helped people who wanted to help: A number of the threads early on in the aftermath contained lists of all the things that users could do if they wanted to assist not just the investigation but the people who had been injured — from links to Google’s Person Finder and the Red Cross help line to information on where to pick up bags left at the scene, or airlines who had changed their policies on cancelling flights as a result of the attacks.
• It helped to verify facts: In most of the information-gathering threads, there is real-time verification of the info occurring, as users challenge other users to prove their claims. It is almost identical to the discussion that occurs on a Wikipedia “talk” page, in which editors try to verify the information that is being posted to an entry. Multiple updates occur within minutes of each other, and each one is marked with the time and any edits that took place.

Is Reddit capable of journalism? Yes

Even Reddit itself posted a disclaimer on one of its threads that said it isn’t trying to be a media entity, and that what it does isn’t journalism. And the user who created the “Find Boston Bombers” sub-Reddit or thread told The Atlantic that he doesn’t think of it as journalism either, and that no one should ever rely on such threads as a source because there is so much conflicting information flying around. He also admitted that the attempt to identify the bombers from photos was “a disaster.”

So if even Reddit itself doesn’t claim to be producing journalism, why do I keep saying it is? Because I think Reddit and Twitter and other social tools are broadening the concept of journalism. Some, like my friend Raju Narisetti from News Corp., believe that we should call this kind of thing something else — like that horrible term “user-generated content” — and leave the term journalism for things that are produced by professionals who are held to standards (although some might question whether the New York Post fits that description).

@mathewi you should fear. Find a new definition for non-journalism and use it. Why call ugc, crowds as journalism. It isnt.—
Raju Narisetti (@rajunarisetti) April 22, 2013

In a nutshell, I believe that journalism is being atomized — that is, broken down into its component parts. One of those is the news-gathering function, whether it’s from eyewitnesses or just on-the-ground observation. This part of journalism can and is being done by anyone, thanks to what Om has called the “democratization of distribution,” and it can be hugely valuable. And the verification function has also been outsourced, so that people like Eliot Higgins can play a key role in identifying Syria weapons without leaving their apartment.

Reddit may have failed badly in one specific thread, and that is unfortunate. But other parts of the site have and continue to perform valuable functions that I see as part of the broader landscape or ecosystem of networked journalism. Instead of focusing just on the downside of that community, we should be thinking about how to take advantage of it — how to turn a negative feedback loop into a positive one.

Post and thumbnail photo courtesy of Shutterstock / wellphoto K

The September issue will be SmartMoney’s last print issue. Staff now report to Raju Narisetti, managing editor of the WSJ Digital Network. SmartMoney.com has 2.5 million monthly visitors and a print circulation of 800,000. Its ad pages fell 17.4 percent between 2010 and 2011, according to the MPA.

In addition to its own site, SmartMoney.com content and tools will now be available through “an expanded co-branded personal finance site on MarketWatch.com.”

Dow Jones and Hearst launched SmartMoney jointly in 1992 and Dow Jones acquired Hearst’s stake in 2010.

– Ken Babby has been promoted to chief revenue officer of Washington Post (NYSE: WPO) Media/Washington Post Digital and GM, Digital, from VP, Post Media Advertising. He’ll oversee all non-circulation revenue functions for Post Media and Post Digital in what seems to be a vastly expanded role from that of Sheikholeslami.

– Raju Narisetti gets an expanded digital role on the edit side. One of two managing editors, Narisetti will add responsibility for the Universal News Desk to “presentation” operations so he can “guide our digital offerings from inception to creation to implementation to operation.” He will oversee all digital news content, including newsletters, alerts and emails. Narisetti’s responsibilities, detailed more below, include “news-product strategy, innovation and development on the web, mobile and other digital platforms,” as well as audience building and engagement. Fellow Managing Editor Liz takes over Style and the other feature sections.

Update: As Mediagazer‘s Megan McCarthy just reminded me, Sheikholeslami took a turn in WaPo’s live chat only last week. The topic: The Future of Washington Post Digital Content. No mention that she wouldn’t be part of it although she did answer a digital brain drain query: “We hate to see our good talent go, but we also understand that there will always be new challenges and opportunities that may cause us to lose some.”

For the record, she stuck with WaPo’s standard no-paywall mantra but left a wee bit of wiggle room with “at this point in time.” Some new products, she suggested, might require subscriptions. “If they are truly differentiated products, then I don’t think users would object to paying.” She explained the stance a little later: “On the web, we generate revenues from selling ad impressions and therefore putting our site behind a pay wall would actually have a negative impact on online ad revenues.”

Update II: I haven’t talked to Sheikholeslami but am assured by someone familiar with the situation that this was indeed her decision, made at least in part because of concern over not having enough resources to do the job. That adds a little nuance to the last line of the memo: “They will have all the support they need to ensure The Post

Will it be a pay app? Narisetti didn’t address that specifically, but in response to another question said users should ‘”stay tuned” when it comes to a decision on whether or not to charge for online content. Later, he raised the issue of what readers will actually pay for online when a user suggested offering a premium “no ad” edition. As for the Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) tablet, it doesn’t sound like WashingtonPost.com is on board for the opening round. Some excerpts:

Arlington, VA: Will The Washington Post (NYSE: WPO) have a product available on the new Apple tablet?

Narisetti: Hopefully as soon as Apple lets us offer one. Difficult to predict since we too don’t know many of the details behind the tablet.

Washington, D.C.: With the news that the NYT is going to a paywall at the start of 2011, what is the likelihood that the Post will also? Or is there an expectation that Post traffic will increase as the Times’s decreases?

Narisetti: Like most media companies, we believe that our content has value to both readers and advertisers and do want to find ways to get paid for the costs we incur to generate such content–in print and online. Much like subscriptions and advertisements pay for a print paper, it would be good to have a model where both advertisers and readers pay online. But, while we continue to keep a close eye on such announcements as well as some emerging models, no decisions have been made about charging for washington post content online. But, stay tuned.

pay for online post: I subscribe to the paper edition and have for years, but I would pay a little more if I could get the online version with no ads. I go to the Web site several times during the day and it is really annoying sometimes with the invasive ads. I think people would pay a fee to get the same site, just without ads.

Narisetti: Thanks. If, for example, we were to print a paper without any ads, there is simply now (sic) way Washington Post would survive unless we charged way, way more per copy each day. In some ways the web is similar. Our standards for “invasive” ads is actually significantly higher than many news sites and I am constantly pushing back, with a fair amount of success, on what I see as really intrusive ads. I do wonder if readers will be willing to pay a substantial premium for a news site without any ads, given everything is free. We get so much pushback on prices for a paper that costs less than $5 a week even as we happily pay $5 for a Starbucks latte. But your larger point about invasive ads is something that the news side is very aware of.

And, in response to a reader who offered to pay for online news, but not opinion:

Narisetti: good to know. it is possible some people will only pay for the opinions side and not for the news side (which some could see as a commodity)…i suspect multiple pay models will emerge over the next year or two as we all grapple with this issue of how to fund our news generating costs.

The announcement comes just a week after Phil Bennett stepped down as WaPo’s managing editor after four years. Bennett was passed over as editor in favor of former WSJ ME Marcus Brauchli last summer. Narisetti had worked with Brauchli.

Spayd joined the paper in 1988, and has served as editor of washingtonpost.com since 2007. She worked under Executive Editor Jim Brady, who said he was leaving his post last month. A replacement for Brady is expected soon. More after the jump.

– A river between print and online: The separation of the print and online newsrooms — both physically and metaphorically — is something that Spayd, the first woman to hold the ME post at the paper, wants to address. She acknowledged that the two sides have not always worked well together. She told WaPo: “There’s a river between us. Most of the people have not worked in the other person’s medium. But I very much believe we have a terrific website and the bumpy road has gotten a lot smoother in the last couple of years… I’m not Polyannish about it. We have a ways to go.”

– Crazy enough to start a newspaper: Narisetti was a founding editor of The Mint, a two-year-old joint print-online pub based in his native India. As for how his background will help ease the paper’s digital divide, he told WaPo: “When you’re crazy enough to start a newspaper in 2007, you rethink a lot of the approaches to it.”