Maybe we're enacting a version of The Abilene Paradox, where everybody agrees on something that nobody likes. So, you don't get what you need AND I don't get what I need.

Isn't that fixable?

Well, I'm happy to talk to you about it. And I don't own a high horse. The thing is, I started new sites, so I didn't have any brand to protect. I can tell you about what we (the users of our sites) did to make sure our community didn't bond around twisted values that were destructive, and maybe that will help you. But I'm interested in what you will ask, because I haven't worked where you have, and I can't predict what's going to be a burning issue for you.

In fact, why don't we all get together and do it on IdeaLab?

My two cents just from your comment above:

1. Why have UCG at all? Why not aggregate instead? If you're covering a local area, why beat the bushes to get everybody to blog on your site when instead you could embed yourself as the hub of a local blogosphere of many sites, who will love you because you are acting like they know you're alive, and will return the favor? The advantage to this is that both parties -- the media company and the bloggers -- maintain the maximum freedom, because each one is responsible for their own content on their own site. I think there's a fundamental difference between aggregating headlines and a line or two from local sites and having people publish things on your (virtual) letterhead.

I point to (link to) things all the time that I would not publish on H2otown, my local site. Hell, I write things on my own personal blog that I wouldn't print on H2otown.

If you do do UGC, I would try to be totally agnostic about WHERE content originates -- from your newsroom, from contributors to your site, from outside sites that cover topics your newsroom covers. What goes up the top is what's fresh and interesting, period.