A new way of reporting trials — the liveblog

I've been liveblogging state and federal court trials for more than a year now, but the Mark Becker murder trial has convinced me more than ever that this is journalism's future.

Liveblogging - for those who don't know - means covering a trial or an event as it's happening. A reporter's notes go straight to an online site, where people can read immediately what is happening. The immediacy is important, but the purpose of a liveblog is to involve viewers as contributors.

I've built a following with each trial I've covered, and we've had some good discussions on a smaller scale. But the interest and following exploded with the Becker first-degree murder trial. More than 1,000 people followed the live blog every day of the three-week trial, and well over 3,000 signed in for the trial's final days.

Readers wanted to discuss the case. Some were from Parkersburg and knew the families of Becker and Ed Thomas, his victim. Some were angry about the death of Thomas, Aplington-Parkersburg's famed football coach and community leader. Some were interested in mental health and the law. Others were court “junkies.” The rest were just curious.

They came from all over - Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Dubuque, Grundy Center, Des Moines, Parkersburg; Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Montana, Japan and Kodiak, Alaska.

The readers' involvement doubled the day a video of Becker in a police booking room was shown to the jurors. The defense attorneys wanted jurors to see Becker's odd and bizarre behavior. The media had specific seats in the courtroom, and we couldn't see the video. How could I report this?

Then, it hit me: Ask for a little help from the readers. I asked the ones who could see the livestream of the video to become citizen journalists and tell me and others what was happening in the video. They did.

That was just the beginning. A cousin and a sister of Thomas from Illinois and Montana jumped on the blog and told us how the family was holding up during this difficult time and how they felt about Becker.

Some days I learned from the readers/contributors. I had lawyers and mental health professionals on the blog talking about mental illness and the difficulties in proving legal insanity. Other people who had served as jurors in other trials shared how it felt to be in that jury room.

What was most surprising to me was that some of the biggest days for the liveblog came after the testimony ended. We were waiting for a verdict. I expected to sign on and say the jury was still out and that I would be back when the verdict came in. Six hours later, I was still monitoring the conversation. Readers started discussions about mental health and details of the case. And it continued like that during the 26 hours we waited, over five days, until the guilty verdict arrived at 10:51 a.m. Tuesday.

I'm not alone in embracing this new way of court reporting. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University recently completed its “Citizen Media Law Project.” The students asked me to share my liveblogging experiences, along with those from other journalists (http://tinyurl.com/ylsjvst).

Sixth Judicial District Chief Judge Patrick Grady said he understands the immediacy of liveblogging and doesn't see any problems with it as it's been practiced in Linn County.

“I can see where it would be more spontaneous than a regular new story in regards to transparency (of courts),” Grady said. “It doesn't go through an editor. I still consider it like the print media. I think it's important to talk to the trial judge about it. The only problem I could see is if something got out that shouldn't, like a (sexual assault) victim's name, but you wouldn't do that anyway.”