Ask an Expert About the Future of 'Citizen Journalism' 97
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
That is... (Score:0)
Why not ask Google/Trends instead of an "Expert"? (Score:0)
anonymous journalism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:anonymous journalism? (Score:0)
good question (Score:1)
There is going to be some uncertainty to anything, less with a famous newscaster and more with a stragner. How many people take a stranger's story for the truth if it sounds plausable? If 100 strangers claim to be eye-witnesses and tell about the same story, it could be a conspiracy.
The real utility of anonymous journalism is to direct attention to a particular story rather than spread some gospel.
How to Get More Respect (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, when I think about an internet journalist (blogger) I think about someone who is sitting at home, doesn't go out and look for stories but just looks them up online and posts whatever he/she finds with their own added (probably made up) info. They probably wanted to be a real journalist but couldn't get hired. The truth can hurt, you know.
When you think about a journalist for the New York Times, or Washington Post, etc... you think of people who go out, find the story, interview important people, meet with sources in dark alleys or secluded areas. Maybe I'm wrong to think that way, but how credible do you think you are on your couch, half-naked in front of your computer?
Now, how do you change that? I'd like to see you at the press conference, jockeying with the other people trying to get Bush or whoever to answer your questions. Or I'd like to see you downtown during the protest, filming it and interviewing people about why they are protesting. Get the idea? Maybe some of you do that, but I sure don't think so when I think of internet journalists.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:0)
As for the snide remarks about half naked blogers, I too could characterize all major media as spineless drones repeated whatever drivel their bosses tell them. Yep, the truth does indeed hurt. Or I could instead avoid painting them all with the same broad brush, and instead differentiate the ones who fit the stereotype from the ones who don't...
Nah, who am I kidding? It's much more fun to lump all of 'em into the same category.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:-1)
An internet journalist is even lower than that and qualifies as a pathetic loserboy who failed even at being a real journalist. Seriously, are you even listening to yourselves?
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:0)
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:3, Insightful)
Thirty years ago you would have been right. Journalists used to be taught "legwork", going out and getting a story.
Today's mainstream journalists show video from "photo opportunities" and report "he said/he said". They sit in the Green Zone and send home reports from their Iraqi stringers. If they ask awkward questions at press conferences then they find their supply of "leaks" cut off and in extreme cases they're banned from the White House. When is the last time you saw a "scoop"?
The opportunity for citizen journalists is to pick up the abandoned profession of journalism. There is a need and (I hope) an audience.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:0)
Honestly, I get really tired of the term 'citizen journalists'. For one thing, we barely get paid enough to qualify us as professionals anyway, and for another thing, the whole point of journalism is to give the community a forum in which to discuss its issues.
That means if you are helping to create that discussion, you can call yourself a journalist. You don't need to stick the hacky 'citizen' label in front of it.
There are a lot more journalists out there than those you see on the broadcast news. There are a lot of us who are out there in our communities, reporting on the little stories, the non-national stories, the stories that are still important to a community.
We spend a lot of time sitting through the boring city council meetings, trying to get all sides of a story, doing our best to search for truth. It's not very exciting, and it doesn't get us famous, but it helps people who don't have the time/resources to sit through these meetings to learn what's happening in their community, and it gives them an opportunity to do something about it.
Journalists aren't all broadcasters on CNN. And you can be one too! It's easy! I'll see you at the boring city council meeting.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:2)
It makes me mad when bloggers pretend to be journalists, but won't even make an effort. I'm not even talking about Iraq, how about in the reasonably safe USA, get out there and work at it! I think the secret prisons was a pretty good scoop that freaked out the white house when it was released by big media. Yes, they had to get approval to run with it, and the administration said no, but they finally did it anyway. Or how about the warrentless wiretapping (spying) on Americans? Those are good stories and can't have been that easy to get.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:1)
It is th eones that like to comment on thisge at they have no depth of understanding in that polute the entire blog concept. They create the ompression that the entire blog phenomin is nothing more than ignorant people spouting off. They also create the noise that the informed people get lost in. For each blog written by a person with real knowledge there are so many ignorant ones that the information gets lost in the flood.
If people would just be honest about their limitations, and the limitations of their expertise on the topic that they are writing about, the whole system would have a much better chance of being accepted a creditable. As it is, we have freshmen art majors (nothing aginst art majors, my wife was an art major) trying to pontificat on evrything form Global Warming, Global Politics, and Global Econonomics, to the reason the his girlfriends hair looks funny when she dies it orange. There is just no creditibality. In my blog, I make it clear, it is a reflection of my observations (here I will pimp my blog http://www.myspace.com/robert_crawford [myspace.com] ). I am not saying that I am the know it all of blogs. I accept that most of you can do better. All I am saying that it is my observations. If prople would just be more honest aboutt the real limitations of thier blog, the respect would come.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:2)
I'd check out your blog but my company blocks myspace due to mature content? *sigh* I'd like to see an example where somebody makes a little effort.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:1)
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:0)
You mean republish press releases and parrot propaganda, don't you? That's all that I've seen the major media doing in the last few years.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:0)
Plagiarism and Ethics? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
News and commentary (Score:2)
The Economist wears their bias on their sleeve and will write articles about the EU agricultural policies that slip in the word "lunatic". They also send out reporters to the places they cover and resist government pressure. Sometimes they're even accurate on subjects I know about, a rare thing indeed.
The US court system trusts a refereed argument between two biased advocates to dig up the truth. If bias is disclosed and reporting is honest, then you can synthesize objectivity by reading two one-sided reports. "Better an honest enemy than a false friend".
Not the issue (Score:2)
There is a difference between bias and deception (Score:2)
Rush on the other hand frames his "facts and statistics" with assurances he is telling the truth (pretty much identifying the crap he has pulled from his fat ass).
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:1)
Much of the online media is corporate ;-) But there are very good sites [zmag.org] for with very good articles from authors interested in truth rather than not offending advertisers.
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:1)
The fact is (unless you live in a country that effectively restricts access to certain media) that nowadays it is technically possible to get a more accurate picture of current (and past) events. The internet with its 'blogosphere' et al are doing a great job helping with that, but a lot of information is indeed already out there on traditional media. Watching BBC World and CNN International instead of Fox News and CNN US or reading foreign newspapers would give citizens a much broader perspective on current events.
The real problem though, is that most people just want 'simple' 'entertaining' news after a day's work and not delve into a battle in the search for the truth; this unfortunately appears to be only the privilege of journalists and people with spare time on their hands such as students and geeks
Re:How to Get More Respect (Score:2)
At least five dozen sources were contacted, and probably hundreds more; this series has been maybe a year in the making.
Do you think that citizen journalists, working alone with little "journalism school experience" and presumably holding down some other job, can produce similarly well-researched articles?
What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:2)
Re:What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:0)
Re:What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:1)
Re:What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:2)
Re:What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:2)
Considering that Reuters is one of the players involved, I'd say the answer is "None." [littlegreenfootballs.com]
Re:What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:2)
Of course, digital cameras have changed things quite a bit. You can get digital images "up" very fast, but this speed comes at a price: they are easier to forge and the forgeries are more likely to go unnoticed because of the large number of images. It seems to me that the "traditional" media haven't quite accustomed to this yet. But this doesn't mean that there are no safeguards against such incidents. It also doesn't mean that they don't care if the pictures are real or fakes -- in all the cases where a photo journalist has been caught manipulating images (at least in all the cases I've heard of), that person has promptly been fired.
Re:What about mob-rule journalism? (Score:2)
The same as there are with current journalism, the rest of the mob.
Every time I watch the news or read a news report and I watch a report of event X in country Y I have to wonder how accurate a picture I'm getting. For the basic facts it's easy to look up a few different sources on google news, but to get an interpretation that isn't misleading me in some way seems almost impossible (definitely impossible to confirm it's unbiased).
Just look at any story that comes up concerning the US president and notice how there are at least two very valid sounding and completely contradictory viewpoints in the mainstream media. I'm beginning to feel that I can't trust the media for anything more than the bare facts (which themselves can be misleading when chosen carefully). Maybe citizen journalism will help to keep the mainstream media in check, or maybe I'm doomed to live in a cloud of uncertainty.
If I was "Citizen Journalist" ... (Score:1)
Re:If I was "Citizen Journalist" ... (Score:0)
Re:If I was "Citizen Journalist" ... (Score:2)
That's interesting considering what's going on. If the house of cards that the administration has constructed falls down, indictments for war crimes becomes a serious possibility. Now are citizen journalists going to rally around the flag like professional journalists or report the crap hitting the fan?
Heavens No! Of course not.... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Just a tip...when they ask, go with the "two scoop" lobotomy.
Re:If I was "Citizen Journalist" ... (Score:0)
(Hint: There is a reason why the US government and its policies are overwhelmingly represented in a positive tone by US mass media corporations, especially when compared to "underground" journalism or foreign sources. Also consider that censorship doesn't necessarily imply direct, outright rules on what can be said -- money can speak louder than words.)
Re:If I was "Citizen Journalist" ... (Score:0)
Profits.
Where do you see newspapers' role in this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where do you see newspapers' role in this? (Score:1)
"New Press" proejcts sound hokey (Score:0)
Anyway, about these write-ups... I think that "news sites" that offer "the truth the media companies don't want you to see" or "it's an exciting time to be telling the news and the possibilities are invigorating, if you're not scared to death," are attempting to appeal to the niche of people that are probably arrogant (think that they know better than mainstream news) or they idealize websites that dissent from maintstream. I can't stand either of those niches so I don't view those websites.
I'm not trying to knock anyone, but I think if you're going to make a big impact in the long term, you should present your news in the same manner that mainstream news does. For example, the Christian Science Monitor. Everyone sees the name and steers clear, until they hear that they actually have accurate write-ups. But nobody ever says "that shmuck blogger has very un-biased news articles."
Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Money (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
I wonder.. (Score:0, Flamebait)
Re:I wonder.. (Score:2)
mod 04 (Score:-1, Offtopic)
open monitoring of governmetn (Score:1)
Just the facts (Score:1)
And yes I DO know that this goes for the mainstream media as well, but twice as much for CJ.
What's wrong with other extant examples? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with other extant examples? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with other extant examples? (Score:0)
Anyone else think that a news site where anybody can alter stories is not necessarily the most credible source of information?
Re:What's wrong with other extant examples? (Score:2)
This is an interview. Please ask questions. (Score:2)
This is part of the interview process, and is for folks to submit questions to Prof. Jay Rosen, and for the moderators to moderate the questions. Thanks.
Re:This is an interview. Please ask questions. (Score:2)
This is an interview. Please ask questions-Hand up (Score:0)
Re:This is an interview. Please ask questions. (Score:0)
Plagiarism and Ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet we know that on college campuses, where we can measure the phenomena, Plagiarism is comparatively rampant. So evidently the common man cannot restrain himself.
It seems to me this is a serious issue for any new journlism form with a low barrier to entry and a high degree of anonimity for the author. How does this ethos get enforced in such a realm?
A related question is the ethic division of commentary and news. We know that's become a problem in the media for some outlets where management has a thumb on the content. But the traditional news organs, especially newspapers, still refrain to the most part. Indeed the NY times just went so far as to remove the typset justification from any article that comtained any sort of analysis or opinion, and reserving the typsetting for only traditional factual journalism stories so the difference is apparent to the reader from the start. How do we reinforce that ethos in the untrain journalist?
Huh? Re:Plagiarism and Ethics? (Score:2)
But then: Yet we know that on college campuses, where we can measure the phenomena, Plagiarism is comparatively rampant. So evidently the common man cannot restrain himself.
As if college students haven't had it drummed into them since their earliest schooling days that cheating is wrong.
Or are you trying to say that professional journalists are, by their training, somehow morally superior to the "common man"? Either way, your reasoning is poor.
Pretending that 99% of journalists are honest is like saying 99% of office workers never steal pens. Stop using Perry White and Clark Kent as your typical journalists and keep in mind J. Jonah Jameson as well.
missing the point. (Score:2)
The point was not that journalist don't have ethocs problems, as you rightly observe. The point is that this neew medium has a low barrier to entry and a bigh degree of anonimity. Couple that with no editor&publisher taking the long view of establishing the reputation of the journal in a High-barrier-to-entry medium, then you have a looming problem.
A possible retort would be to say that well, time will sort the good from the idiots. But empirically this does not appear to be true. Like the famous economic principle of bad apples driving the good out of the marketplace because of insufficient resources by the consumer to differentiate them, the web is a plethora bad apple paradise. So either you wind up with a system that is rife with bad apples. or you revert back to the non-anonymous, higher-barrier-to-entry system of a credential and reputation based system, like tradiational media.
The question was how to avoid those inevitable, and well proven, economic outcomes.
Re:Plagiarism and Ethics? (Score:2)
I disagree. "Traditional journalism" is rife with "press release reporting" where someone reads a press release, rewrites it, maybe calls a few sources starting with the company's (or government's) own PR department and then publishes it as news. That kind of reporting is so common that it basically gets a free pass nowadays.
I'll traditional plagiarism where at least the original author put in the legwork to come up with his own perspective over the parroting of a PR campaign. [paulgraham.com]
fruit of the vine (Score:2)
printing quotes from a press release and planting them in a nice steaming front page story is what the PR firm wants you to do. That's why they provide the partially preapred ingredients for you. Indeed if you do it without attribution the happier they are.
What's the difference? Taking when attribution is expected is plagiarism.
Re:fruit of the vine (Score:2)
You gotta be pulling my leg.
As the reader of the newspaper, and presumably the one paying for it, *I* expect attribution.
Scale (Score:2)
Much of the discussion seems to be about getting out from under the control of "gatekeepers" like publishers and media owners. Yet, while the internet is less concerned with money, it has its own form of currency: popularity, in the form of the link.
Doesn't this just turn the highest-traffic sites into new gatekeepers? Especially as the number of blogs increases, the gap between "rich" and "poor" expands?
I suppose what I'm really asking is, it's hard enough to get noticed today- how will someone just starting out get noticed ten years from now?
How does NewAssignment.Net Work? (Score:3)
How do I get into the whitehouse press briefings? (Score:1, Interesting)
There will always be a bias away from "citizen" journalists because of this.
mod 3o3n (Score:-1, Troll)
Who are the idols of citizen journalists? (Score:2)
I had a look on the "readers edition", a german platform for citizen journalism. Nearly half of the submitted articles are not published because they are bear promotion of books, internet services or parties. The published articles are mostly "commentaries" which lack of every rule of argumentation or research. Sometime it seems citizen journalism combines the bad attributes of mass media.
fact vs. opinion vs. conjecture (Score:0)
Dilution of Protection? (Score:2)
What impact would this have on national elections? (Score:2)
If "Citizen Jounalism" takes off, do you see this as a way that candidates without the massive financial resources normally required to sustain a traditional campain could actually compete? Could this make the "third party candidates" a credible threat? Could this actually serve to "level the playing field"?
Re:What impact would this have on national electio (Score:2)
Re:What impact would this have on national electio (Score:2)
But let's see what the expert says.
Journalism vs Commentary (Score:2, Interesting)
Citizen journalists? (Score:2)
Checks and balances (Score:1)
This ideal situation doesn't happen often, but it does happen... and most responsible news organizations at least make an attempt to reach that level of impartiality.
In contrast, most "citizen journalism" doesn't go through any fact-checking or opinion-filtering until after it's posted, and much of it doesn't go through any, ever. There's also a very fuzzy definition of the difference between a journalistic story and an opinion column in many people's minds, as evidenced by many of the questions and comments posted here.
While "citizen journalism" has its place, can it ever be an effective means of disseminating factual information, without a structured system of checks and balances in place?
Blogging (Score:2)
Re:Blogging (Score:1)
Funding for long term reporting? (Score:2)
doesn't matter...really (Score:0)
Why? Because most people don't care about getting the truth, or holding officials accountable. Yes, we will bitch about "the world" over the water cooler, but nobody actually wants to do anything about it.
Case in point. TV news. It's barely news anymore. Mostly opinion. And yelling. Oh, and cars chases, gotta have those. Why is it this way? Because viewers want it that way, despite what they may say to the contrary.
Journalism *can* have power. But they can only report. They can't make people care.
Hold on now. (Score:1)
You can't just count vulnerabilities (Score:1)
Moo (Score:1)
On blogs, where a more personal touch is expected and delivered, bias it outright. There the opposite happens. The readers (with the same bias as the blogger) see the entries as centrist. The writer states the bias at the outset, and then is free to be biased.
Bias has pros and cons. Pros include that it provides the invisible thread that ties everything together, and gives (supposed) background for the facts. Cons include that it can skip important facts, or cloud the readers judgement before the facts are clearly given.
No bias also has pros and cons. Pros include "just the facts", and the lack of need to read someone with a competing bias just to get the real story. Cons include the bias of the reporter which is not stated (because the attempt at being non-biased failed), and the desire to find opposing views, no matter how (in)significant or evidence just to sound unbiased.
My question is then, where does 'Citizen Journalism' fall into bias? Is there bias? Whose then? The reporters? The payers? The non-paying contributors? Or is there no bias? In which case, what safeguards are there from faling into the normal trap of stating and believing in no bias, even though there clearly is one?
Center for Citizen Media (Score:1)
Is this really independent journalism? (Score:2)
What is your opinion on blogs and this so-called Journalistic independence?
Slashdot missed the boat (Score:0)
That's why I prefer Digg to Slashdot. At the former there's no shadowy group with an agenda dictating what we see on the main webpage. Digg is democratic. Slashdot is run by a cabal.
How to help (Score:1)
How To Get Same Protection As Print? (Score:2)
Other than amassing a legal fund with which to defend one's self and create the case law that subsequent writers can enjoy, what are some avenues to generate a legal aura as a member of the 4th Estate? Would it be as simple as making sure a few local cyber cafes have hard copies of the weekly blog digest on the counter? Incorporate as a non-profit?
Why should we ask you? (Score:2)
mo;d down (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Why would Reuters contribute? (Score:2)
News objectivity (Score:1)
As an expert on the "future" of Citizen Journalism (Score:0)
Re:As an expert on the "future" of Citizen Journal (Score:1)
Did the ground breaking article ever published? (Score:0)
What do you think of BrooWaha? (Score:0)
It's been launched not long ago and is like a deviantart of journalism. You have your account and submit your work to the newspaper. They almost always publish it if it's not porn, spam, or anything like this.
The more popular your articles are, the more popular you, as an author, become. Popular authors are more likely to reach the headlines with their stories and are given more weight in general in the newspaper.
It's pretty much a mix between digg.com and deviantart.com. The thing seems to work pretty well.
Less sexy beats (Score:1)