If Facebook may attract so many people because--perhaps--its users care more about publishing their thoughts than actually communicating with others or informing them--does this give some credence to the "citizen journalism" Jones writes about on p. 190 of "The New News Media" in Losing the News? That is, do you see something like "citizen journalism" fitting into your world--or is Jones putting all his eggs into this electronic basket?
Is the idea of "citizen journalism" something that might be in our future--or is it possible that it is already here (E. g. commentary citizens currently contribute to online news sites or blogs becoming the information of the news sites)?
Or do you think Jones's ideas are far-fetched? Remember that news aggregates like AP & Reuters rely on paid journalists' work, as do all bloggers, whether they have followers (like Drudge, Huffington) or whether they are like this blog, created by us and for us exclusively.
Jones states that readers want to see themselves in the news, to read about themselves and have responded positively to the hyper-local news model. I tend to agree that the iron core of news is missing in my local paper (CNI, WauwatosaNOW) however, there are many blogs about whatever the citizen wants. People aren't really doing citizen reporting, they are merely ranting in a fairly uninformed fashion, about issues they feel passionately about. This is the trouble with citizen journalism--uneducated, un-vetted writers can publish anything and call it a report. We all lose if there are no more paid reporters. Just like anything, there is accountability when someone is paying you to do something.
ReplyDeleteI think Facebook has less of the name-in-print phenomena than average blogs, simply because Facebook really requires membership where you can find a blog with simple Google search.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think that some people on any Internet medium want to see their name out there, so they write -- whatever, whenever -- in hopes to "go viral" and get their 15 minutes of fame. Or, in some cases (like Justin Beiber), really lucrative recording contracts, etc.
I really have no problem with blogs, etc. because they are a digitized version of the coffee house, the public square, the places where people USED to go to express their opinions publicly. Educating people on discerning which blogs and sites are credible versus some guy in his bedroom ranting about something is how you keep real reporters and "average Joe's" distinguished from one another.
Citizen journalism would not fit into my life. As Jones states, “nonjournalists.. .generally come to this role with definite views” (191). The one-sided account contains bias and opinion; not factual news of any weight or value. News items should contain accurate information: fact checked and peer reviewed until eyes strain and truth illuminates the dark. And thus questions arise. Who will monitor these citizen journals? Who will insure accuracy? Who will preserve democracy via written word? It may come to the point where the lines between fact and fiction blur into pseudo reality.
ReplyDeleteThis type of journalism has already wormed its way into American newspapers. If one visits their website, comments to article abound. Some visitors may have more interest in the comments than the actual news story. And most comments tend to trail away from the big issue at hand. Also, most of what ends up in newspapers or television news does not contain news worth material. I want to know about local, state, and national policies that affect me; world news that alters history via scientific, medical, engineering, or socio-economical breakthroughs; and the economic health of the country and possibly the world.
I do not know about all bloggers relying on journalists for information. In the future, many journalist will lose employment and the flow of true facts may come at a standstill. Some bloggers will gain creditability and produce news worthy stories, but those will require a paycheck and expenses paid. One cannot expect reliable news for nothing even though many do and get stuck with unreliable news accounts. Thus the realm of fantasy erects from the ruins of reality.
I don’t know whether too many people blog just to see their name in print. I think they really have opinions to share and passions about specific topics. I believe the motivation is deeper and more internalized than seeing their names in print. After all, many blog under fictitious names.
ReplyDeleteThe citizen journalism section of the Jones book has merit. What comes to mind are the weather watchers who have some training and free time and willingly provide “hyper-local” weather reports for a variety of newscasts on radio and TV. People can be wonderful observers and reporters. I also liked the comment about Skoler’s collaborative journalism He “creates a veritable rolodex” of 65,000 people, all with valid and recognized areas of expertise who can provide very current updates on the news(p190).
There was something related I ran across in the research for my midterm paper. Frank Ahrens of The Washington Post said that the future will likely have more news presentations with less writing and more visuals with a possible move toward “you-tube” type videos paired with written headlines and highlights (Ahrens ) meeting the needs of those who want to see for themselves.
I thought that overall, the Jones chapter provided some new insights about the group approach to reporting—at least for me.
Unfortunately, I think citizen journalism is running rampant whether or not we want it to. As bad as it might sound, I read a lot of news (valid or otherwise) on websites like Facebook and Twitter. It's immediate, and I typically don't have to hunt down more information unless I'm curious to learn more details about something. With the advent of the Internet, I think more people are turning to citizen journalism because they can publish whatever they want to while putting their name out there. For some people, this is probably a dream come true. For readers, though, it's not always a good idea to trust whatever they read online. In the same vein, I'm sure that can be said for newspapers and magazines as well.
ReplyDeleteI think citizen journalism will be even more popular in the future, but yes, it is already here. Look, for example, at local news stations. They list phone numbers and e-mail addresses so that viewers can call in or e-mail any news information they witness. They also ask for photo submissions, too, for things such as storm pictures. I think if anything, media outlets are trying to embrace citizen journalism because they know the only other option is to ignore it... which in turn could lead to them losing viewers and readers. Legitimate and qualified reporters are easier to trust, but there is something to be said for instant news stories online, especially when they are free to read.
I think citizen journalism is already here. I don't know if it will fit in well into my world but it is something everyone will have to deal with and dig through in a quest for information and truth. I do think you tend to listen to people who listen to you but you still do not have to agree with that person after you listen. I think it tends to lead to debate which can be healthy and awakening.
ReplyDeleteI had said before that we all need to act like investigative journalists to find our own truth. I like to dig deeper when I can and I have thought about attending events to get information first hand. I would not take it upon myself to write something up and publish it as a result of attending the event for others to consume because I know I would be bringing my own truth into it. I might talk to others about it in conversation but not for the intention of persuasion, similarly to what I do for other current events I read about and discuss with others. Thinking about this previous sentence, it could be considered citizen journalism, in a way. Just not for the general public.
I agree that citizen journalism is already here. I think it fits well in my life in some ways, but not so well in other ways. While perhaps reading a blog is a quicker, more accessible way to read about a newsworthy happening (especially if I'm on the go and can see it via my cell phone), I'll always go to a site like CNN or the New York Times to read about that event. Why? Because I trust those sites (though, CNN has been getting on my nerves more often than not lately).
ReplyDeleteMany of the blogs I read have a purpose (and many tend to be on the subject of writing), and I don't feel like any of the people who run them do so just to see their name on the Internet. They do what they do to help inform, and possibly teach, other people.
Whether citizen journalism is a good thing or not, well, I think only time will tell. It's not going away, and I think it'll be interesting to see how things change in the next few years.
Facebook, in my opinion, is not a relevant example of citizen journalism. Admittedly, my opinion is limited to the entries I read on my own Facebook account. There could be some Facebook groups that are viable examples of citizen journalism.
ReplyDeleteI do see citizen journalism fitting into my world, but it will emanate from citizens whose work is more representative of traditional journalism, not just any lunatic who knows how to type and post his/her opinion.
Yes, I believe citizen journalism is already here. A few weeks ago when a tornado touched down in Racine, I heard the weather person ask the viewing audience several times to post their pictures or call in to report what they had seen. While talking to eye witnesses has always been a part of reporting, I was surprised to hear the frequency with which he repeated this plea for the public’s help.
I think citizen journalism will become part of traditional media, and it may, to some degree, replace it for awhile. However, that will be short lived. It is going to take just one major incident that can be traced back to citizen journalism that will send people running back to traditional journalists for credible news.