Newspapers over here tend to use a “come on” at the end of a story to encourage readers to share their experiences of a particular issue. It can work if your readership is big enough (or interested enough) but it still feels too much like dictating to them for my liking.
I’m looking forward to reading more of your thoughts on this concept because the potential is so great.
But there is still a cultural issue I feel some newspapers need to address – the journalist doesn’t necessarily know best. Neither does the reader, so together they might actually have a few answers.

I think some media outlets are starting to incorporate consumer-generated video on their websites, but you bring up an even more interesting idea. I was reading the NY Times on the way in to work this morning and on two seperate occasions, when the article ended, I thought: “I’d like to know more on this topic.” How great would it be if at the end, there was a line that said, ‘for more on the Radiohead concert, go to Joe Smith’s blog.

The Times has directed me towards something of quality that I may not have known about on a topic I am interested in. That’s a value add. Plus, think of all the consumers out there who would love to get the validation of the NY Times (or Guardian, etc.). Rather than pushing people away from the Times brand, I think it would encourage me to read there paper more often. Sure, they’ll give me the surface level information, but by leading me to the deeper dive they’ve created trust.