Crowdsourcing? That’s a name we haven’t heard around these parts since 2011 or so, when the New York Times sent an open invitation to readers to spend the weekend helping sift through more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s emails in search of juicy dirt.

If we remember correctly, that fishing expedition turned out to be a bit of a bust, which might explain why the mainstream media seemed to sour on crowdsourcing — taking a hard pass, for example, on having readers scour a dump of some 30,000 “lost” emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner, which then turned up on hundreds of disaster recovery tapes.

Just like fact-checking, crowdsourcing is now cool again, and the Huffington Post is thrilled to have hundreds of volunteer muckrakers busily verifying donors to President Trump’s inaugural. Really, it’s a party atmosphere out there the likes of which hasn’t been seen since those pussy hat knitting bees.

But seriously folks, we don’t have a problem with a news outlet attempting to verify donors — its what reporters are supposed to do, right? And there does seem to be reason for suspicion.

The thing is, we’re old enough to remember the last few months, when just about every major paper and news site announced the new crack investigative team it had assembled to monitor the Trump administration. Maybe they could do the heavy lifting?

Let’s see how things are going so far:

Nailed it.


Essentially, if your name is any combination of John and Isabel and your phone rings a lot this weekend, now you know why.

Volunteering sounds good, but what happened to the $15 an hour living wage?

* * *