Citizen Journalism: Our Voices, Your News by Paul O’Shea.

On January 15 2009, New York City momentarily relived the horror of 9/11. Except on this occasion the outcome was going to be significantly different. It appeared to be a routine flight from New York City to Charlotte, North Carolina but within a matter of minutes after take-off one man held the lives of 155 passengers in the palms of his hands. Chelsey Sullenberger knew that he had to act quickly. With both engines disabled from a collision with a large flock of birds, the plane was beginning to catch fire and they were losing altitude rapidly. Sullenberger needed to make a decision, but that decision would test every one of his 42 years of experience and training as a pilot. His options were to do or die and he feared the latter. The passengers heard “Brace for impact” seconds before the plane made a smooth ditching in the Hudson River. Miraculously everyone survived. Moments later, Janis Krums’ tweet, “There’s a plane in the Hudson. I’m on the ferry going to pick up the people. Crazy.” (unpaginated), rocketed through the twitterverse. It was a tweet on an eventual collision course with mainstream media. Immediate News was not broken first by a professional reporter, but by none other than an on-the-spot citizen’s reporter enabled by social media. Twitter had made its debut in the news as a conduit for mainstream news organisations. However, this tectonic media shift had begun to occur long before the advent of tweeting.

As a fundamental aspect of our existence as social creatures, human beings possess an affinity for storytelling. Since the earliest forms of communication when we began to utilise our vocal chords to produce an oral culture and to adapt tools scratching rudimentary drawings and symbols on cave walls, papyrus, vellum and paper, we have never ceased to externalise our knowledge. Throughout the ages, the format of transmission has undergone many transformations making it significantly more accessible; and as a corollary more- appropriate and expeditious to share our knowledge. Technology has altered and is altering storytelling; it has provided us with a cornucopia of tools for expressing this ancient art in digital form.

However, not everyone is willing to relinquish the past and advance with society’s new form of communication. In this- history is repeating itself. The reaction to the digital revolution we are currently experiencing is a replication of milestones in the past such as the advent of literacy and the introduction of Gutenberg’s printing press. Dan Gillmor, the author of what could be deemed citizen journalism’s bible, We the media: Grassroots Journalism by the people, for the people, observes how Gutenberg “brought forth a revolution that no one could have anticipated at the time.” (236) He states: “[t]he Vatican’s monks, who controlled publishing, were helpless with the onslaught of this new technology” (236). Kenneth Neil Cukier, a technology correspondent for The Economist, remarks that “internet is affecting journalism just as the print press affected the Church” (unpaginated). Like the monks who reluctantly accepted their dismissal from their position as gatekeepers, a majority of modern day, old school journalists are reacting in a similar vein.

Journalists are experiencing a “disintermediation”(Gillmor 13)-effect as readers move to the digital realm in order to obtain and create their own news for free. The longstanding unspoken we-talk-you-listen code of business conduct between mainstream news providers and consumers is beginning to deteriorate like the business model of the newspaper industry. The wall that demarcates consumer from producer is beginning to crumble as user-generated content disseminates throughout cyberspace.

For many years, mainstream media exploited their power over society by presenting news as a lecture; a one-way flow with severely limited possibilities for redirecting that flow. If we think about this logically it is rather ironic considering good communication skills are a prerequisite for journalism but the very definition of the term communication involves reciprocation, which mainstream media fails to foster. However, now the tides have turned and the monologic media landscape is becoming a dialogic environment, as the audience becomes collaborator. We can now talk with instead of being spoken to by the media. After a long time of exclusion, technology has finally granted us involvement in the global conversation of news.

Napoleon Bonapart famously said: “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets” (Proverbia unpaginated) which demonstrates the power of the newspaper, but now that power has deviated into the possession of the tech-savy audience. “Freedom of speech”, Dan Gillmor explains, “is the most fundamental part of a free society” (Gillmor 1). Exercise of the freedom of speech can be dated from the eighteenth century with the writings of the pamphleteer Thomas Paine to a present form witnessed in blogging, micro-blogging and citizen media.

By the start of the 21st century, the foundation of this new wave of participatory journalism was set in place, but towards the end of 2001 the strength of that foundation was to be tested. When planes hit the World Trade Centre on September 11, a plethora of eye-witness accounts from the frontline, personal stories, views, opinions and photographs from New York City Bloggers exploded in the blogosphere like a mortar bomb. As a result of this catastrophe, a glimmer of hope and positivity could be extracted from the death and destruction. Mainstream media was no longer deemed sufficient and the audience’s impetus was now self-sufficiency. People collectively decided they needed to express themselves, their views needed to be heard, their grief and anger needed to be aired; their personal stories needed to be shared with the world. Digital storytelling had located its niche in the community. The watershed moment had come for the extensively repressed voices of the people to be expressed, and social media provided the means to do so. Journalism’s “hyper-competitive business” (Basen unpaginated) intensified as it faced additional competition, other than the internet, from their audience. The citizen journalism virus spread, and there appeared to be no cure. However, the only known prophylaxis could not be found in a vaccine, but in vitriol which conservatives administer willingly.

For those unfamiliar with citizen journalism, the nomenclature is self-explanatory because the concept is exactly that. It is ordinary people assuming the position of a journalist without a bachelor of journalism degree, the professional tools or status of the trade, a substantial wage, the companionship of a watchdog editor, and the Code of Practice necessitating professional and ethical standards.

However, as a result of this depiction, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the label ‘citizen journalism’. Professional journalists are undoubtedly in a dilemma because of the power citizen’s wield and thus find offence in the association of their occupational title with unqualified, unregulated and unrestrained individuals. As Mark Glaser notes, this is “because many professional journalists believe that only a trained journalist can understand the rigors and ethics involved in reporting the news” (Glaser unpaginated). Although this may be true, it is not a reasonable argument for the prohibition of citizen journalism. The proverbial smooth sea never made a skilled mariner, and so if citizens are not given the opportunity and liberty to try, how will we ever know?

What is more, the contention with the term is not only limited to the use of the word ‘journalism’. Some people argue the term ‘citizen’ implies every member of society and therefore is undoubtedly inclusive of journalists; the term may be considered oxymoronic. This is not so far from the truth considering professional journalists overtly and covertly cross enemy lines to practice the traitorous act of citizen journalism. Perhaps they do so in order to exercise liberation from the editorial and professional straight-jacket placed upon them by the corporations they work for. In an odd way, the subjugators of news are themselves subjugated by their position as gatekeepers. Like the constraints placed upon us as consumers of media, a journalist’s expression is restricted by editorial control and Codes of Practice.

However, the involvement of an editor on a given story certainly does not insure quality. The editor’s decision to chop and change its delivery and presentation may not necessarily be the correct decision, but that decision will inevitably alter our interpretation of the story. Public opinion can be easily manipulated and swayed in any direction. Therefore, why should we have to consume news that has already been chopped, mashed and chewed for us? Are we not capable of feeding ourselves with what we choose to consume as readers? Maybe mainstream media should consider what John Byrant proposes in his essay “Herman Melville’s Typee: Editing a Fluid Text”. Byrant suggests “[e]ditors must invite readers to become editors or to think editorially, as they read, and thus become attuned to the pleasures of the fluid text” (unpaginated). This model already exists in citizen journalism because the text is a work-in-progress until the news becomes no longer topical and outdated. On citizen journalism sites, readers have the ability to comment, edit and use the “‘Vote-it-up’ button” (Silverberg unpaginated) to vote for their favourite articles. This feature can be found on the elite Digital Journal website which is an international participatory news site where thousands of citizen reporters can contribute newsworthy content from around the world. Along with their high standards, Digital Journal pay contributors monthly for their work through Paypal, and this is delegated based on the quantity and quality of work submitted, and the number of votes they accumulate from their readership. The ingenious application of a voting and feedback system to a published article creates an accumulative snowball effect thus producing an overall bigger and better piece of writing. Subsequently, the author can alter their work to suit the needs of their audience and fill in the lacunae in their knowledge with the information the audience contributes freely. If mistakes are made, they can be rectified immediately, which would have severe repercussions if it occurred in print news. A writer’s work quality can be established by their vote-count which, for obvious reasons, cannot be equated with sales figures in the newspaper industry. In citizen journalism, editorial control is not held by one or a select few individuals, but instead by the community that participates in it.

While, on the other hand, in print journalism, interaction between reader and news provider is only partially achieved by the availability of the ‘Letter to the editor’ section and, if we are lucky, an email address with an easily filled inbox. Comments from the peanut gallery should be welcomed by mass media, not brushed aside because suffice it to say the likelihood is a readership’s collective knowledge of a given subject will most likely be superior to that of a single journalist or reporter. Thus readers should be participants in the process because they may be able to add an alternative perspective which the reporter lacks. If mainstream media’s business objective is to satisfy their target audience, should readers not have the authority to decide on the content they wish to see instead of what the editors choose to display? Jeff Jarvis, a highly fruitful blogger, claims: “What I’ve learned is that the audience, given half a chance, has a lot to say. The Internet is the first medium owned by the audience, the first medium to give the audience a voice” (Gillmor 111). However, opponents of citizen journalism endeavour to eradicate our cyber-liberty and subdue the voice of the netizen. They do so by stonewalling the internet and its audacious material.

Citizen journalism has mountains of resistance to scale because it is bombarded with criticism from all angles, but this evaluation is applicable to the nature of the internet in general. Anonymity, both the enemy and ally of the internet user, is “one of its chief defects” (180). It can be a good servant but a very bad master and the latter is evident from the fraudster’s paradise the internet has become. With the free availability of knowledge and software, it is possible for almost anyone to fabricate a legitimate-looking web page, and the content they wish to present on it can be manipulated at will. We have all seen the convincing Photoshop images of celebrities, and not to mention the all-too-familiar illegitimate videos of the sneak-peeks and promos of Lost Season 6 online. Subsequently, this is an agonising thorn in the side of citizen journalism. Anonymity, the uniform of some citizen journalists, is automatically equated with unreliability, but this is not always the case. As can be seen from the aforementioned journalists that double as citizen journalists, in certain circumstances anonymity is essential for the well-being of the user. Not all citizens are protected by the freedom of speech act, especially in countries such as Iran and China where they operate Draconian forms of punishment for simple acts of violating their austere domination of the media. In these countries, blogging is “the stuff of actual revolutions” (Gillmor 141) and anonymity shields the challengers of the status quo from governmental retribution.

Unfortunately, not every internet user is a rebel fighting for the rights of the oppressed. In fact, some internet rebels are fighting for quite the opposite. I must be wary of the term I use next because even the mention of the word ‘troll’ can ignite flame wars or cause users to instantly hit ctrl+alt+del. Cunnigham defines a troll as “a time thief” (Gillmor 183), and they are the rotten apples that spoil the barrel. By polluting sites with random, obscene and often insignificant postings, the process of quality information filtering and processing becomes a nightmare and traditional journalism is eager to point this out.

In addition to the above difficulties that follow citizen journalism like a shadow, there is the “cut-and-paste problem” (Gillmor 174) which anyone with a computer is liable to be guilty of. The difficulties with cutting and pasting are not only that it is outright plagiarism, but that the process can lead to accidental and deliberate misquotation. People’s words can be manipulated for personal gain with personal loss on the behalf of the recipient. A recent study by Pew Research Centre’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) reveals that approximately “80% of news stories are repackaged from other sources” (Hogg DigitalJournal). Even though news has migrated to the web, a significant amount of the information is sourced from print newspapers. The economic downturn has reduced original reporting and spawned a wave of cannibalistic journalism where some news providers feed off each other in order to survive. Of course, this occurs without giving due credit to the fruits of someone else’s hard labour. Some citizen journalists are without question guilty of this offense but, to use the trump card critics so often abuse, the majority of citizen journalists, excluding those that do it deliberately, are not trained in citation and therefore are unable to give credit to sources because of a simple lack of knowledge. There is a legitimate-illegitimate dichotomy within citizen journalism; except mainstream media’s cynical brush tars all citizen journalists without dividing the wheat from the chaff.

“The flood of unreliable information on the Net”, Gillmor claims, “could have the ironic effect of reinforcing the influence of big media” (188). The reality of this statement was felt on October 3 2008 when citizen journalism was in the media spotlight for all the wrong reasons. An anonymous teenager reported on CNN iReport that Apple‘s ex-CEO, Steve Jobs, had suffered cardiac arrest, but the story was a complete hoax. However, before the rumour could be removed from the iReport site, the damage was already done. Apple‘s stock prices plummeted which questions the motive behind the stunt. Any doubts professional journalists had about the reliability of citizen journalism were now confirmed and it was not going to be forgotten easily.

These arguments have eroded the trust and credibility of citizen journalism, but it is rather naive of us to consider that this criticism is only applicable to internet-based media. Even with the high standards and immaculate reputation news organisations strive to maintain, mistakes are inevitable. Jayson Blair, a former reporter for theNew York Times, was granted his P45 for fabricating and plagiarising parts of his work. Blair was guilty of pathetic work standards, constructing quotes for interviews which never took place and fabricating details to compliment his stories. The ‘Blair Scandal’(Wikipedia unpaginated), as it became known at the time, left a black mark on the New York Times and its 152-year sound reputation. However, this incident is only one of many the newspaper industry has had to deal with.

With that in mind, the question remains can we trust mainstream media over citizen journalism? Are our ink-stained print journalists more reliable than the mouse-potato netizens of participatory journalism? Professional journalists think the answer is blatantly evident when you pose the question would you allow a citizen surgeon remove your appendix? Gillmor suggests “a hierarchy of trust” (189) is required in order to determine the credibility of a news provider. All Blair jokes aside, one would think there is a general consensus that big newspapers like the New York Times would be considered more trustworthy than tabloids or online news sites. However, not everyone would agree that mainstream media is trustworthy. This is because of the media-bias conspiracy that the newspaper industry is telling us only what they want us to know. How viable is the merit of information when it is only originating from a select few?

Distrust in mass media’s spinning of the news is a contributing factor towards people’s motivation for seeking out user-generated news, even though it may lack professional standards, and for creating their own news to compensate for what is not being represented. The community craves the various viewpoints and perspectives of the folk. This “citizens participation craze is at an all-time high as citizens determine the contestants’ fate on ‘American Idol’ (OurBlook 36), X-Factor, and the many other opulent reality TV shows. Social media is converting people into producers instead of consumers. This re-establishes power to the people. Larry Atkins, Professor of Journalism in Arcadia University, says “citizen journalism does democratize information. The major newspapers are no longer the sole outlet for news and opinion” (Atkins OurBlook) because they have failed to advance from the Jurassic period, to embrace new media and avail of the cadre of citizen string-correspondents that are providing free-labour. The newspaper industry is drowning, but they are refusing the citizen journalism lifebuoy that can help maintain their buoyancy during the global economic downturn.

Furthermore, the newspaper industry has also taken a knock-out blow from the availability of free internet content. The cash cow they milked for years has finally broken the fence of the dead-tree based farm to graze in the greener, boundless fields of the digital realm. Web material is not only complimentary, but there is a menu of options to choose from. Television and Newspapers present news in a linear fashion, from beginning to end or front to back, which is categorised according to a sensationalistic hierarchy and the preferences of the editor. However, on the web we have multi-dimensional manoeuvrability to pursue stories from an immeasurable number of different sources and from an illimitable number of points. Unlike newspaper readers, web-news readers get the full range of information and perspectives on a story free of charge.

There is also an additional feature of the web which the newspaper industry cannot attain. The immediacy of the internet demolishes the twenty-four hour cyclical time structure that the newspaper industry is built upon. History is now being made as it happens not when the printing press commences the following morning. Handheld devices with internet access assist the creation of real-time news. The majority of camera-phones enable users to directly upload videos to sites like Youtube and Youtube Direct. Youtube Direct is a new citizen journalism tool whose potential has not been fully acknowledged. This enables amateur journalists to upload videos which broadcast media can utilise, thus giving the owner a chance of recognition and fame. Broad cast media have learned from print media’s downfall and capitalised on the presence of citizen journalists in the community. Collaborative participation has enhanced broad cast media, therefore, giving them a substantial foot hold in our fluctuating society.

On the other hand, print media organisations, which have advanced with technology by developing online newspaper sites, are not only rejecting the rewards of collaborative participation from the community, but they are attempting to lockdown the digital hatches of the online newspaperdom to segregate the non-paying public. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is a proponent of the campaign for the re-introduction of subscription barriers on online newspaper sites. Murdoch argues in his recent article “Journalism and Freedom” in The Wall Street Journal that “[q]uality content is not free” (Murdoch unpaginated) and he thinks this acts as a rational motive for applying a pay-to-view charge. He believes “good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organisation to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for” (Murdoch unpaginated). Since income from advertising is no longer feasible because of the introduction of cheaper online advertising sites like Craigslist, Murdock claims the newspaper industry can only sustain itself by distributing its news behind pay walls.

Furthermore, Murdoch states the cannibalistic journalists of the digital zone, I mentioned earlier, “are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others. And their almost wholesale misappropriation of our stories is not “fair use.” To be impolite, it’s theft” (Murdoch unpaginated). Murdoch’s argument is valid and it is certainly not candid that “content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits” (Murdoch unpaginated). However, constructing a fortress of only money-penetrable walls to stave off looters from pillaging news booty will inevitably redirect them to other accessible sites, but it will also redirect readers to free sources. There are more options than the restrictive “[p]ay or go to jail” (Gillmor 152) business model.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of how to charge for web-content in a pay-free zone, but perhaps Murdoch could extract a page from Chris Anderson’s book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Anderson makes an impelling argument for “freemium” a business model which operates by providing services for free, instead of charging for them, to create more profit. This may initially appear to go against the grain of the rationale of any business strategy but, in fact, it is a very sensible tactic. If online newspaper sites supplied basic news for free while charging for special news and features, the needs of the producer and consumer would be mediated halfway.

Alternatively, there is the “tip-jar approach” (Gillmor 152) which some bloggers and citizen journalists apply to their sites in order to fund the time, money and resources they expend while news gathering. Chris Allbritton, a journalist and blogger, created the blog Back to Iraq during the Iraq War in 2003. Allbritton appealed to his readership by saying, “Send me money, and I’ll go to Iraq to cover the war” (Gillmor 156). Allbritton made history when he raised an approximate $15,000 from the donations of his readership, and subsequently became one of the Internet’s first, successful community-funded bloggers. The amount of time and money the community invested in Allbritton demonstrates the level of trust he acquired over and above mainstream media. Americans did not have faith in their country’s presentation of the Iraq War, most likely due to their participation in it, and so the cutting-edge of citizen journalism supplied a non-politically motivated, on-the-ground perspective of the war.

In a similar vein, online newspaper sites could adopt this payment method. There is a common misconception that the internet-junkie generation of today are habituated with obtaining free news from the web so they will never be willing to pay for it. Like Allbritton’s blog, if a payment system was optional, and not enforced like Murdoch’s model, then site users might be more willing to ante up some money. Readers could donate money based on the quality of the service, the news stories that meet their standards and interests, or towards stories they would like to see investigated. Like every potential business model, flaws can be found with this but that is not my objective. The positive aspects of this donation-payment method sustains the power of the reader, the goal of delivering reader-oriented news, and a qualitative hierarchy so journalists’ standards would have to be reader-conscious, instead of editor-conscious, in order to receive donations from the public. As Adam Lashinsky says, “the culture of the internet is that information wants to be free” (qtd. in OurBlook 20). Murdoch and company are attempting to burst the Web 2.0 bubble, to put the kibosh on cyber-liberty and impose restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge similar to those that plague print media.

In conclusion, there appears to be fewer professional journalists than in the past but, ironically, more stories are being told. Our propensity for storytelling was always present, but our freedom and means of self-expression were restricted by those who believed they had the ability to communicate it better. The advent of citizen journalism has rekindled an age old tradition that unites communities and nations, like the oral culture of our ancestors. Citizen journalism provides a global platform for one to take to the stage and air one’s views on current affairs regardless of popular opinion. Suffice it to say the future of journalism will certainly not resemble its past. The battle between the worshipers of dead trees and electrons is ongoing and it may not be resolved anytime soon. Credibility is the currency of all forms of journalism and if citizen journalists utilise this to facilitate trade then they could have the potential to fill the gap in the news market. Alternatively, if the newspaper industry swallows their pride and accepts community participation and support then the future of the newspaper industry would be significantly more promising than a shut-down building with a for-sale sign. Consequently, if we look at the people around us today, we are witnessing something special, something that has never existed before. We are all connected and sharing our stories with each other, but in order to know it we have take a step into the digital realm.