Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

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

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask an Expert About the Future of 'Citizen Journalism'

Comments Filter:
  • by Phantom of the Opera ( 1867 ) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:49PM (#16186965) Homepage
    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 [sfgate.com].
  • by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:49PM (#16186975) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by Chas ( 5144 ) on Monday September 25, 2006 @12:49PM (#16186979) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by crush ( 19364 ) on Monday September 25, 2006 @01:09PM (#16187245)
    I'm assuming that you evaluated and rejected some of the other high-profile citizen journalism outfits that predate the founding of your own project. Off my head I can think of:
    • The Indymedia [indymedia.org] network is one of the longest standing examples of an attempt to have a large citizen journalist network.
    • The Pacifica Network [pacifica.org] (especially the Democracy Now show
    • The New Standard [newstandardnews.net]
    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?
  • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday September 25, 2006 @01:21PM (#16187397)
    Lately there's been a few incidents of Plagiarism in the news, not to mention some wholesale ethical breaches of faked stories (e.g. Blair at the NY times and "a million Little pieces"). But the thing is the reason those are news is that they are both exceptional and something that is specifically drummed in to any professional journalist not to do. Indeed breaking this taboo is probably even more of a sin to the the fellow journalists than to the general public because of this entrenched ethic. 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?

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2006 @01:24PM (#16187461)
    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.

  • Re:Money (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2006 @01:29PM (#16187531)
    Obviously there are some people who's primary goal is to become famous and/or make money through more open journalism. Will the large community of contributors flush out those with less altruistic intentions?


    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.
  • by teflaime ( 738532 ) on Monday September 25, 2006 @01:47PM (#16187815)
    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?

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...