Ask an Expert About the Future of 'Citizen Journalism'
People ranging from Doc Searls to J.D. Lasica to Dan Gillmor to Craig Newmark have talked about how "citizen journalism" is supplanting and/or augmenting professional reporting. (FYI: One of the groundbreaking moments in "citizen journalism" happened right here on Slashdot.) This week's interviewee, NYU professor Jay Rosen, is not only a long-time proponent of civic journalism, but has now started NewAssignment.net with seed money from Craig Newmark, a $10,000 grant from the Sunlight Foundation and, last week, $100,000 from Reuters. Jay Rosen is obviously not just an academic or theoretician, but is actually doing things, which means he can answer almost any question you may have about citizen (or civic) journalism. Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.
Here are some links to articles you may want to read before you post your question(s), if only to avoid duplication:
Web Users Open the Gates
By Jay Rosen
washingtonpost.com
Monday, June 19, 2006
'Blogosphere' spurs government oversight
By Richard Wolf
usatoday.com
September 11, 2006
Open Source Journalism
By Richard Poynder
poynder.blogspot.com
March 28, 2006
Who killed the newspaper?
The Economist
August 24, 2006
AMATEUR HOUR -Journalism without journalists.
by Nicholas Lemann
The New Yorker
July 31, 2006
U.S. Government Should be Focus of Investigative Reports
by Mark Glaser
PBS.org/mediashift
September 7, 2006
Here are some links to articles you may want to read before you post your question(s), if only to avoid duplication:
Web Users Open the Gates
By Jay Rosen
washingtonpost.com
Monday, June 19, 2006
'Blogosphere' spurs government oversight
By Richard Wolf
usatoday.com
September 11, 2006
Open Source Journalism
By Richard Poynder
poynder.blogspot.com
March 28, 2006
Who killed the newspaper?
The Economist
August 24, 2006
AMATEUR HOUR -Journalism without journalists.
by Nicholas Lemann
The New Yorker
July 31, 2006
U.S. Government Should be Focus of Investigative Reports
by Mark Glaser
PBS.org/mediashift
September 7, 2006
Is it possible to be an effective anonymous journalist? I ask because of events like the HP scandal (HP had journalists investigated) and the jailing of Josh Wolf http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/08/01/MNGVQK97AK4.DTL.
I am convinced that online media have made a huge contribution to getting out the truth when the corporate media are seeking to suppress the truth. While there are a growing number of people aware of this phenomenon, reports in the 'blogosphere' just do not get the same respect and currency received by reports in the 'major' or 'corporate' media. What do we, as a community, need to do to enhance the respect internet journalists receive in the world at large?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What sort of safeguards are in place to do fact-checking and prevent false/obviously slanted mob-rule style reports from being propagated as fact?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
- The Indymedia network is one of the longest standing examples of an attempt to have a large citizen journalist network.
- The Pacifica Network (especially the Democracy Now show
- The New Standard
What was it that you found lacking in the above and why did you decide to start a new project instead of reforming and adapting one of the above? Do you think that your decision to accept corporate sponsorship (which is rejected by the Pacifica Network) will see your organization's focus inevitably drift toward the anodyne ineffectiveness of e.g. NPR?It seems to me that the formal mechanism of the separation of the Editor&publisher from the writer is how such standards arose in the firstplace. The writer cannot just publish what they want. And the Editor&Publisher is concerned with establishing the Paper's reputation and can take a long view.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I think for the next 25 years or so any "citizen" journalists will be at a severe disadvantage because the system simply is not set up to accomodate them. At least when you get a job with a real media outlet, there is a bit of a vetting procedure where they won't just hire any joe shmoe off the street... generally some credentials are needed (eg: a year of "journalism school", a couple of years reading the news at the local radio station, etc. etc) If anybody can be a journalist, then it also means that any CRAZY body can be a journalist. Since time is finite, In order to prevent the few crazy people from asking crazy questions and wasting everybody's time (eg: "why is the government covering up the failure of all the manned moon missions to the big cheese ball in the sky?"), these citizen journalists will simply get locked out of most already existing establishments and only "real" journalists will be asking the questions.
There will always be a bias away from "citizen" journalists because of this.
Is there any reasons why being ambition from reporters -- hungry for recognition or a good career -- leads to poor journalism? I would think this would be a key intention to tap into. While the current institutions don't do this well, it seems to me that the future of the press rests on whether or not ambition can be effectively channeled, not necessarily "flushed out."
I think the "pro" is just as important as the "am" in "pro-am." Amateurs provide a breadth of coverage impossible with professionals, just as professionals provide (in theory) a career committment to quality. However, the secret sauce is that people can move from one to the other:
Professionals have to compete with ambitious amateurs to keep their jobs. This helps keep them honest and on their toes.
At any time, a professional who feels too constrained by their institution can take their skills and go indie. This should help prevent institutions from hoarding talent in the long run.
This speaks to your point about "self-correction," which is sort of an ideal which I doubt any system will live up to at all times. Still, to the extent that citizen journalism is open and transparent (even if some sources are still anonymous and some information not available until after a story is "published"), it should be "self-correctable" if not necessarily self-correcting in every case.
Much of what we see in the blogosphere is pure opinion supported with selective representation of fact, half-truths, and the occasionally bald-faced lie. In fact, it has been shown repeatedly that "big name" bloggers (regardless their ideaological stripe) are not above representing pure propaganda as lily white truth. Does ethical journalism matter in this environment? Will it matter that a journalist include the fullest picture of the story possible if people are turning to partisan ideologues with specific agendas and an interest in misrepresentation for their news?