Not to be outdone by the recent spate of crowdsourcing initiatives kicked off by Gannett and later followed by the BBC, who just a month ago announced a similar crowdsourcing initiative where they would pay an undisclosed sum to amateur video and photo ‘journalists’, Yahoo and Reuters are jumping into the fray with both fists first. The NYT reports on a new initiative that will be launched tomorrow, where, just like the BBC announcement, amateur photographers and videographers will be able to submit material for possible publication and syndication.

And, just like the BBC, there are vague promises of compensation if your piece does get chosen. The blogosphere has jumped on this piece of news, with Om Malik mentioning that its about time, given how prevalent digital cameras (and cameras on a phone) are; Thomas Hawk weighs in on behalf of potential photojournalists (let’s be above board with how much you’re going to pay them); Natali Del Conte opines on whether or not its a grab for Yahoo to get some free reporting done.

While the details of the process remain unknown, I think the specifics behind the compensation will probably be ironed out soon enough; that’s not really the issue.

If 2006 is known for the year that blogging, social networks, and social bookmarking got big — and readily game-able exploitable entities — it will also be known as the year that traditional news media took its first baby steps towards utilizing user generated content in earnest. And, as such, be the beginning loops in the death spiral for many professional journalists and photographers.

Its almost like the disintermediation of professional reporters — in all its forms — and when the price is so right (costing nothing to retain, and only paying for product), its hard to fathom why mainstream media outlets will turn away from this move. I think 2007 will only see a continual evolution of this aspect of The News.

I think one entity that has been lost in all of this is Getty, one of the leaders in stock photography, which has made great strides already in the user-generated content. They have an existing program that is open to anyone with a digital camera, that allows them to upload photos to their website for sale by Getty. If Getty makes a sale on those photos, then the photographer gets a cut. But, as I heard on a local sports station, apparently its changing photojournalism across the board.

What’s happening is that amateur photographers are now going to sporting events, celebrity hangouts, and movie premieres with off-the-shelf cameras and lenses, and start taking photos. Getty licenses the content that professional media news organizations can purchase the usage for a reasonably low price. With iStockPhoto, a Getty service, its happening on a smaller basis, but with Codeword “OPEN”, Getty is making a move to introduce this as a key strategy for their future business initiatives.

Poof! Disintermediation of professional photographers.

Is this a good thing? Well, while user generated content will flatten the management structure at many content companies, I think it will also mean a flattening of a profession, where an absolutely unforgiving and Darwinian culling will take place. When your competition just grew by a many orders of magnitude, the lesser talented professionals will necessarily not make that cut, and be mercilessly dropped. Bad for them, but good for everyone else.

• Its good for the content aggregators — they get to skim the best talent at a better price
• Its good for the remaining professional journalists and photographers — they get a bigger share of a smaller pie
• … and its good for the amateurs — who get a shot at getting noticed, when they otherwise wouldn’t; and get paid in some small way for their efforts.

Time will tell which way user generated content will lead the mainstream media, but my hope is that it will actually improve the breadth and quality of the news – providing that a strong editorial hand is present in sifting through all of that content. After all, as the NYT article concludes “If you are asking your audience to know what is a national news story of interest to the world, it seems to me there are only two results: whether you get flooded with lots of car fires, or you get nothing. Neither is a particularly good effect.”