Dan Gilmor has put up the first chapter of his new book for reader feedback. Now how cool is the fact that he can get some responses about this:
My editors and I are most interested in your immediate feedback on:
What’s missing — that is, a topic or perfect anecdote that absolutely has to be included. More important, what’s wrong. If there’s a factual error I want to fix it before the book is published.
This gives me an idea for my students. Maybe another step in their freelance process would be to post their drafts to their blogs and then go out and solicit feedback from those who know the subject. I’d have to think about how they could find some targeted readers without opening up a whole range of issues.
At any rate, here’s the thesis for Dan’s book, and I can’t wait to read the rest:
September 11, 2001, followed a similarly grim pattern. We watched — again and again — the awful events. Consumers of news learned the “what” about the attacks, thanks to the television networks that showed the horror so graphically. Then we learned some of the “how” and “why” as print publications and thoughtful broadcasters worked to bring depth to events that defied mere words. Journalists did some of their finest work and made me proud to be one of their number. But this time, something profound was happening: news was being produced by regular people who had something to say, and not solely by the “official” news organizations who had traditionally decided how the first draft of history would look. The first draft of history was being written, in part, by the former audience. It was possible — it was inevitable — because of the Internet.