Robert Niles, editor of Online Journalism Review, talks about the case of PasadenaNow, which is trying to recruit Indian journalists (as in India) to "transcribe interviews, cover webcast government meetings and conduct interviews via e-mail" -- of stuff happening in Pasadena.

While that type of work can be done, here's what gets missed:

Indian contractors might crank out the copy, but engaging newswriting flows from solid reporting. A reporter needs more points of contact with a community than webcast meetings and an e-mail inbox to find the stories that a well-informed readership demands. Yet too many offline news publishers are following a similar model to Macpherson's: Cut back investment in local reporting, outsource news coverage (usually to the AP wire) and disengage from the community by relying on low-paid, overworked reporters who cannot afford to live in the community they are assigned to cover.

That's why smart online publishers are transforming their news publications into information-sharing communities. Yes, the economics of online publishing demand that one keep expenses low. Why pay contractors in India when you can solicit more informed coverage from local readers for free?

Of course, while reader-contributed content does not require you cut checks, it does demand a significant investment of time. It also requires a publisher have the talent to engage his or her readers. That's where so many independent and affiliated online publishers fail. Managing an online community is a new and distinct journalism skill that builds upon skills in interviewing and editing.

But many people have developed it. The Web offers thousands of lively, engaging, information-sharing online communities that offer smart information readers could not find elsewhere in the popular press. I suggest that hiring one or two of them to help build your news website would represent a far smarter, and lucrative, investment than a team of low-wage copy crunchers from 12 time zones away.

Here's a related post:

Covering Wall Street from Bangalore

Niles did talk about the dodgy economics of PasadenaNow, which only has 45,000 unique visitors per month. He also talked about how Pasadena gets ignored by the L.A. Times and how the Pasadena Star-News is a cookie-cutter chain newspaper that offers surprisingly little content about Pasadena.

I would suggest, however, that what he's talking about -- reader-generated content -- is still a form of outsourcing.

I also wonder if it can be considered "journalism" in the classic sense. Would we call it journalism in any other area if we relied on sources to cover themselves?

Having good online community leaders from outside traditional journalism would be a supplement to one's regular journalists, but if journalism is what your site is supposedly about, I don't see them as a replacement.

Over the years, I've been involved in a few online communities, most notably a four-year-stint as moderator of CAJ-L in the late 1990s. One interesting thing about that experience was the sound of silence in the "community" when truly controversial developments happened.

The people needed to make noise at times like that are journalists.

Frankly, and while perhaps things are changing, I still think people come to news websites to learn the news, not to tell the news.

However, if people aren't willing to pay for good journalism*, then publishers will be forced to look at various options to reduce content costs. If that means exploring various types of outsourcing, so be it.

* In early April, I went to an event by the Canadian Journalism Foundation called The Tech Effect on News Reporting -- Is Traditional Journalism Dead? From the promo blurb:

The Internet has revolutionized the way we publish and consume information. “Citizen journalists” can immediately broadcast breaking news to millions of people through blogs and online communities, while audiences download free podcasts and webcasts specific to their niche interests. In effect, the world has come to expect personalized, 24/7 news coverage. What impact does this have on traditional media outlets, from both an editorial and business perspective? Can the news institutions of the past compete with today’s new media mavericks?

However, the session could have easily been called The Cheap Effect.

The panelists largely concurred on one anecdote about buying the New Yorker magazine, namely that it wasn't worth spending six bucks on the mag for one great article, even though there might be 10 in there that they would really like.

Now, if people who make their living from the written word or broadcast image aren't willing to pay for top-quality journalism and writing, what does that likely say about everyone else?