A few weeks ago, a graduate student emailed asking for some thoughts about the term "citizen journalism." Here are the questions, and my replies:
In your view, what is meant by the term “citizen journalism”?
The phrase "citizen journalism" is an imperfect attempt to describe a new class of observer and participant in the public sphere. Before the industrial revolution, citizens communicated and engaged in civic affairs locally. Communication from the world, the nation or the state arrived delayed over many days. This was OK, because commerce moved at a slower pace, too. As a result, a citizen could play a civic role without having to own a printing press, or a radio station. Most events of consequence could be experienced personally. While there was an important role for the commentator on politics and government -- first pamphleteers and later small newspaper publishers -- the "news" was local and personally experienced and so the role of journalist was neither well developed nor a vital necessity.
As the world's population grew, commerce became national and then global, and the telegraph and then telephone and then ship and air travel dramatically quickened the pace of commerce and the easy of movement of citizens . . . and as population concentrated in great cities . . . news that might affect a citizen's business or life began to happen quickly and often remotely or at a time or place impractical for the citizen to experience personally. In the public sphere, it became impossible for an elected official to reach all the voters on a face-to-face basis. And so the civic sphere began to depend upon proxies of the public to gather critical news -- journalists.
Really until the Internet, mass communication -- broadcasting and major newspapers -- and become the only practical means to provide citizens with the information they needed to be informed voters and effective citizens. Over time, these services have become heavily influenced by commercial interests to the point where entertainment, rather than information necessary for the functioning of democracy, dominates.
The Internet is a disruption. Now individuals, with very inexpensive tools, can reach hundreds or even thousands of fellow citizens based solely upon the quality or relevance of their message rather than their ability to afford printing presses or a broadcast service. Many citizens are taking advantage of this. And some of them are behaving in ways similar to the patterns that so-called "professional" journalists have adopted -- attending meetings, talking to sources, reviewing documents, analyzing and summarizing matters considered newsworthy. And yet they are doing this not as a full-time job but as an avocation, or perhaps a part-time concern. It's too early to tell what sort of impact this development will have on the public sphere. The phrase "citizen journalism" describes this new development.
What do you think about the rise of citizen's journalism?
As noted above, this is a fundamental shift in the way information necessary to a democracy is transmitted. It is diminishing the role of professional editors as "gatekeepers" and arbiters of public dialogue. A story of consequence will emerge in spite of the inability of the traditional media to unearth it or cover it. This is good in the sense that it means a worthy story cannot easily be censored by omission. However, is may also be bad, in the sense that unsubstantiated gossip and rumor can elevate to a level perceived as "news," and affect the public sphere in potentially harmful ways. It makes necessary a new role for the traditional journalist -- that of an information valet -- a trusted consultant to the public, helping sift news from nonsense and present each in appropriate context. Now the citizen has easy access to either -- and needs help understanding which is which. Services like NewsTrust.net become vital.
Do you think citizen's journalism is a threat to the media industry?
No. The threat to the media industry is the end of the "pinch points" of expensive presses and limited broadcast licenses. So long as the Internet remains relatively inexpensve, egalitarian and unregulated -- and so long as the suppliers of Internet "pipes" are obligated not to discriminate in their carriage terms on the basis of content (so called "net neutrality") -- the physical limitation on information conveyance from one to many, and from many to many, is gone for the conceivable future. This is undermining mass-market advertising as a business model and requiring media companies to rethink how they do business. The rise of citizen journalism is not a critical factor in this disruption. It's enabled by it, that's all.
What effect has citizen's journalism had on your daily work?
In human terms: Information overload. There are now so many sources of information on so many topics it is difficult to find time for original thought or analysis. We are literally drowing in information. Hence the need for the information valet. See: http://newshare.typepad.com/newshare/2007/04/news_organizati.html
Do you think the media industries should embrace citizen's journalism?
Let's avoid the term, since it means different things to different people. I think news organizations should be in partnership with citizens who are practicing journalism. In fact, they always should have been. For much of the last 50 years, they were able to make a lot of money and grow without partnering with citizens. Now they will have to, or die.
What has citizen's journalism meant for newspapers? television? News that appears on the Internet?
It simply means these news organizations must rethink their relationship with their audiences.
See: http://www.newenglandnews.org/?q=mission
What do you think about the claim that citizen journalism has democratic potential?
It certainly has potential. We are at the beginning of a grand experiment in which we will learn whether it saves, or destroys, participatory democracy. Our research for The Media Giraffe Project suggests that many of the people taking on roles as citizen journalists are profoundly concerned about fairness, accuracy, facts and balance in what they do -- all of the things to which professional journalists aspire. They are also profoundly concerned about making a difference -- about righting what's wrong and about shinning light on dark crevasses of human behavior. This bodes well for democracy.
Because citizen's journalism does not necessarily go through the same vetting process that mainstream journalism goes through, what do you think the public at large needs to understand about citizen's journalism?
The public needs guides and services -- information valets -- which report on the quality and reliability of news sources. This measure of trustworthiness has been the value of brands in the mass-communication era. Over many years, the public formed an impression of the reliability of such brands as The Associated Press or The New York Times or a network news operation, based upon many years of familiarity with their reporting. As new brands emerge, that sense of reliability is unknown and untested. The reliability of Matt Drudge is evolving. What Drudge does is similar to a political columnist, who in the print world would be termed a journalist. A service like Newstrust.net allows the public to rate the reliability and quality of news sources. This will gradually be seen as a vital service.
Comments