A thoughtful response to my last post questions the validity of the term “citizen journalist,” which gets me thinking about the different ways we talk about “the new media.” The lack of widely agreed-upon and accurate set of terms makes it harder for us to talk among ourselves and it really makes it harder to obtain wider acceptance of the “public-led” changes to journalism and communications.
.
First, the notion of the cit-j:.
.
Jim Trainor writes: “Doesn't the term 'citizen journalist' bother you? Good lord, I gave (my son) Brian a couple of Tylenol the other day but I'm not a 'citizen doctor.' The fact there are so many camera phones with video capability out there -- and apparently so many people with nothing better to do than to use them -- doesn't make everyone a journalist. To say so is an affront to anyone who seriously studied journalism.”
.
True enough. Should the term “citizen journalist” be reserved for those writing regularly (journaling) or publishing photo or video images regularly with some attempt at seriously (even if it is through satire or other comic forms of expression) moving forward a public understanding of some aspect of their experience? Wow, is that a convoluted definition!
.
Clearly, Trisha Baptie is a citizen journalist -- giving us a haunting first-person account of the notorious Pickton trial in British Columbia. And so is Vahsek, one of my faithful readers from Nepal whose own blog provides an often-horrific view of life in that country. I don’t believe either went to journalism school, but when you read their posts, you gain thoughtful insight you are likely to get anywhere else, including the mass media. Clearly there is a big difference between their work and someone posting snapshots on My Space.
.
And what do we call the media in which citizen journalists publish?
.
It’s broader than the “blogosphere” because it’s not just written expression – it can be videos on You Tube and photo essays on My Space. But the popular phrase used by business – “Consumer-Generated Media” – doesn’t fully get at it either, as much of this has nothing directly to do with commerce or consumption. “Citizen-Generated Media” is favored among politicos, but much of this speech is not political. “Peer-to-Peer Media” sounds like something a sociologist came up with on a bad day. "Participatory Media” is an apt description. But there are probably too many syllables for that to catch on. That leaves us with "Social Media" -- perhaps that's best.
.
What do you call it?
.
- Jon Harmon
Mr. Editor,
Being a journalist yourself, you should come up with ideas to promote citizen journalists.
However, I can understand your frustrations. Since the goverment is deaf and dumb, it's our duty to make it hear and speak.
Posted by: Vahsek | April 01, 2007 at 05:46 PM
do you really believe that a small country like nepal, which is totally dependent on others (like for the instance, to form a cabinet also they are waiting for a green signal) can benefit from blogging.
the government in nepal is not only deaf but it is dumb also, it can neither listen nor speak. how can 'citizen reporters' help such a crippled and paralysed- government?
the foreigners are taking all the benefits of democracy and economic liberalization and nepalese are still suffering, i don't know how your 'citizen reporters' can help.
Posted by: Mr Editor | March 30, 2007 at 11:54 AM
It's a good thinking to let people face up to the "citizen journalism" phenomenon today. However, citizen journalism still cannot replace the professional journalists because the general citizen do not know how to present the news they found exactly. There are so many Internet rumors were written anywhere, that is because gatekeeper hard to control the news resource in time. But it is causing readers easy to believe- people usually don't check the news' credibility, only journalists do that! Therefore, I still must say citizen reports have news values to provide journalists to track.
Posted by: Yun-Hui Chen | March 28, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Yes, there is anarchy in the Internet.
ANd, I don't see a point to disagree with Lindsey.
Posted by: Vahsek | March 28, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Being a journalist myself the thought that anyone with a camera and access to the internet can become a "journalist" is an idea that has its pros and cons. These jouranlists have not studied journalism or ethics at length. With that being said, I feel citizen journalists are bringing about ideas and issues to the surface where some media outlets fail citizens. I agree with Lindsey B, the term "alternative reporting" seems to be the best fit for this medium.
Posted by: Cynthia S. | March 28, 2007 at 10:17 AM
I agree with Vahsek's statement that any conscious citizen can be a journalist, but Lindsey also brings up a very valid point about media ethics that should be considered. Clearly, there are issues to sort through, and defining the phenomena is a great place to start, but I feel this challenge is similar to writing one definition of public relations that all practitioners will subscribe to. We each have different purposes and goals making that a task of some difficulty. Couldn't the same be true for naming and defining citizen journalists and the environments in which they publish?
Posted by: Erin | March 28, 2007 at 10:09 AM
As a former professional newspaper journalist, I admit I roll my eyes when I hear about most so-called “citizen journalists.” I fear that these people may not have an understanding of journalism or media ethics. Don’t get me wrong – a few of them publish outstanding, thought provoking, untold stories. However, the Internet has created a venue so any person who wants may instantly publish anything he or she wishes. As such, these people might better be known as “citizen reporters” as it seems like more of an all-encompassing term for their hobbies/profession. However, as people are generally citizens anyway, a better term for “citizen journalism” may be “alternative reporting."
Posted by: Lindsey B. | March 27, 2007 at 08:50 PM
Correction:
THERE IS essence of mainstream journalism. However, what we call citizen journalism is equally significant in the present world.
Posted by: Vahsek | March 27, 2007 at 06:33 AM
A nice read!
Any conscious citizen can be journalist!
That is the essence of mainstream journalism. However, what we call citizen journalism is equally significant in the present world.
Though sometimes personal bias can be dominant over fairness, individuals are much better than business-oriented media in some regards.
Posted by: Vahsek | March 26, 2007 at 05:17 PM