This month’s Carnival of Journalism asks a simple question:  

“What is good?  In the changing landscape of journalism, what qualities should the winner of an Online Journalism Award embody?”

First, a disclosure:  I’m a judge for the Online Journalism Awards.  I asked this question because it’s time for me to start judging entries again.  On the #JCARN mailing list, we got all kinds of responses, including “has a viable business model behind it” to “nothing — it should reward the same qualities as journalism done in traditional media” to many ideas about community engagement, use of the online medium, etc.  

I was also a judge last year and it’s one of the most illuminating things I’ve ever done, because I realized as I was doing it that what “good” meant was changing.  The kind of entry that would win an Online Journalism Award exemplified different virtues than, say, that of a Pulitzer winner.  

Apart from journalistic excellence (was the story hard to get?  was it significant?  did it spur action? ) these are the qualities I personally look for:  

1. Growth.  Does this story/package/site show a kind of work that the organization has not done in the past?  (Many people say that we should reward innovation and risk taking, but that seems a bit vague to me.  This is my proxy for innovation and risk). 
2. Is it ambitious?  Are they trying to do something that hasn’t been done before?
3. Is it doing things online that could not be done in a traditional medium (broadcast or print)?  I’m thinking of crowdsourcing efforts, or news that’s part of a disaster response here — things that couldn’t be packaged in print or as part of a TV or radio show.  
4. Do they show vivid and lively engagement?  Or are there zero comments and no @replies to tweets?  
5. Punching out of their weight class.  I am particularly interested in small and new journalism startups, and in previous years I’ve judged categories for small and micro sites.  Size categories (“Best large site,” “Best small site,”) are based on traffic.  In recent years, that’s created an odd situation where small sites like Oakland Local are competing directly against ProPublica because they’re in the same class as far as monthly traffic.  I do take into account what you might call “bang for the buck,” that is, I’m impressed by small sites doing a lot with limited resources.  One of the themes in my thinking about journalism is “The Future is Small,” that is, journalism’s future is about smaller and smaller organizations doing bigger and bigger things; ambitious work won’t be limited to large newsrooms but will become the province of all newsrooms, even very small ones. 
6. Justice and delight.  Does the piece motivate us to care passionately about fairness?  Does it show the kind of nimble expressiveness that is the hallmark of a journalist (or team) that is truly “in the zone” — dominating a story, going back and forth throughout the day online to add, amend, and talk to The People Formerly Known as the Audience?

Perhaps it’s worth talking about factors that don’t influence me as much, too.  

1. Design.  It’s great if a site is pretty, but I’m much more impressed by a site like West Seattle Blog, which doesn’t have a sophisticated design but does have high volume of content, traffic, and a highly engaged community that pumps the comments on stories into the triple digits on a regular basis.  (There are some categories, of course, where design truly IS important, as with infographics). 
2. Pedigree.  I give The Washington Post and an online outlet I’d never heard of before exactly the same attention.  

But what about money, or traffic, or popularity?  Some of our on-list discussion said that the OJA’s shouldn’t reward good work that had no visible business model.  

To me, judging a journalism contest based on how successful the organization is at making money makes me feel a little squeamish.  It feels wrong.  And, really, with the endorsement of all those dead presidents, what do they need my endorsement for?

The qualities that make an entry go up in my estimation do have something to do with money, however.  I encourage them because I think they’re adaptive: I think organizations whose products show these qualities are more likely to survive, and individual reporters whose work show these qualities are more likely to thrive, grow, and stay in the profession they love.  

[For more writing about journalism, check out the Carnival of Journalism.  And, since you’re here, this is my blog about my project of teaching myself to program in order to build news apps. If that’s of interest, put up your feet and stay awhile.]