Be careful that you're not going to descend into LuntzSpeak.  I think that "Citizen Media" is good enough without making any comparisons to the Dark Side.  "Crowd Powered Media" is a little evocative of the mindless Mob whereas "Citizen" echoes the idea of reponsibility.

What needs to be emphasised is that the news posted here is what people really care about, not what Big Media (and all its vested interests) tells us we should care about.

Therefore, a good title/tagline/slogan might be something along the lines of - "Citizen Powered Media - the news people care about" 

Just my two pen'orth.

Thanks, that clarifies the focus of this site.  I was wondering why so much of the news on here had already been reported by someone else.

 However, this ...

"Telling someone they are going to be a citizen journalist is like
telling them they are going to be a citizen dentist; it requires
training and the average person just can't do it.

... is totally the wrong analogy.  Taking some pictures of, and writing about, something that happened are not the same as invading someone's mouth with a diamond tipped drill.  I resent this allusion to the 'average person' as somehow being not capable.  And who decides what an 'average person' is anyway?

"We think that democratizing the news will make it better. "

In my experience so far this statement is not true. I do not say this to make trouble, nor alienate anyone but do so out of my commitment to what Now Public could be, open communication, and the potential of Citizen News as expressed here.  If we are not willing to look at ourselves and those who drive this enterprise are also unwilling to partake in self-examination then honestly how will Now Public ever become what it could be?

Many of the stories on page one, two, and three today had far fewer hits than stories on subsequent pages, so what many viewers see on the front pages, unless they are willing to spend a lot more time and punch along, which many are not, are stories the editors want them to see and not necessarily stories they would choose for the front pages if this was a truly "democratic" process.  And what are the criteria that the editors use to promote stories to the front pages?  That, as it turns out, is anyone's guess.

Also due to the relative powers of those who wield the "Good Stuff", it can be used to support contributors or as a weapon to censure them based on personal likes or dislikes more than what viewers have indicated they want to see or any clearly defined rules of journalistic achievement or quality.  Thus stories are rarely driven forward by the number of viewers. This is due to a core group of people pushing other members of the core group of people's stories to the front of the line, a kind of mutual admiration society within the higher level of the editorial staff of Now Public.  I do not think this is a purposeful process but one that occurs due to human nature and the structure of the site itself.  

A small group of people, the core editors, chooses another group of people based on some unknown criteria which appears to be whether they "like" the person's politics, or viewpoint, or skills, or looks, or bio and then those people get to power stories through the crowd to the front page.  You are a "darling" for awhile but then another couple of new "darlings" come along and the mercurial quality of others can have you in the pariah category very quickly. 

As long as the core group continues to "like" a contributor, through other mysterious criteria that contributor may rise up the ladder and wield even more control.   To maintain his position he/she must then stroke other members of the core group to continue to draw their "Good Stuff".  If the person's politics, viewpoints, or the way they communicate is
not "liked" the person becomes persona non-grata, and receives very
little or no support from the core group regardless of the quality of
stories being brought or written.  This is democratic?  No, it is arbitrary and not at all democratic.  Yes anyone can contribute to Now Public, but with an ever increasing input of material will their contributions ever be seen, let alone be treated exclusively on merit by the editorial staff or more democratically allowed to compete for viewers freely without editorial interference?

New members are told what the criteria are for Good Stuff and what constitutes news, but then the process becomes very muddy indeed and it is obvious that more than the neutral definition of this term comes into play as the game evolves.  Political, personal, religious and social biases of the core staff begin to show on what moves forward and what does not.  The "dem" in the word democracy falls by the wayside and we have another kind of "ocracy" entirely.  Sounds like the political pressure cooker that exists in any conventional newroom to me, with the exception that internal communication between the far-flung Wranglers and the higher level folks is virtually non-existent, unlike a real newsroom.  Super high tech, cutting edge web-site, and yet virtually all communicfations are by messaging, not even landlines in the office I understand.  And finally, in a conventional newsroom, policies and procedures would be very clearly laid out which they are not here.

How all this fuzzy stuff promotes democracy, or what this website claims to want to be does not compute in my view.

I throw this out for discussion and I think if the core staff has the honesty to really look and ask others involved here they will find there are many who believe but have deep concerns about many aspects of Now Public, not just the ones I brought up here.

What happens to Now Public will directly relate to how the core staff and owners approach the concerns of contributors and viewers, and how they bring integrity to this ill-defined new paradigm of Citizen News. 

A tabloid where prurient stories about vacuous hollywood drug addicts dominates or a real news organization willing to set standards for the new journalism?  

Moonwolf, NowPublic is definitely a work in progress. The very character of it changes with each new energetic contributor. For example, today I spent all day working on one story - never done that before!  We're all learning and I'm happy to have you onboard pushing for what you believe in.

Moonwolf good to know we're still on track!

I'm not sure if anyone witnessed the firestorm at the LA Times recently.  They ran an op ed about citizen journalism that has been an utter embarassment to the paper.  I posted something about it the other day.

as long as the crowd are adding new information or perspectives. Otherwise its just republishing and has no real validity over mainstream media, which is being copied.

One thing I believe citizen-mediated media on a world wide network would be its inherent possibility to give everyone access to the exact sources the original creator had at the time.

 I believe many are aware of wikipedia's rather glaring recognition in schools, but luckily, there exists history functions, to which a date of retrieval should clear.

 But that's not all, for the same issue is present lightly in other, non crowded sources of information.

 What really sticks out in NowPublic is the one idea that was not inherently present in other sources of media, one that, for my latest article, I explored - the ability to have interviews open to the public for all to listen to, and from that, verify that your interpetation is correct; as opposed, to, out of context.

 I really would like to see more of this on Now Public; unfotunately, until I get Fido Five Plan, it's just too expensive for me to pioneer it on my own, especially with surveys.