Friday, February 24, 2006
Careful With That 'Citizen Journalism' Label
Out in Colorado, New West writer
Howard Rothman is
criticizing
YourHub.com for allowing shills for local politicians to "post
whatever they like in 'news stories' and 'columns' which carry no costs
like a traditional advertisement and have a degree of implied
authenticity that elevates them beyond anything a paid ad could dream to
achieve."
Is he right?
In 1994, when I was interviewed for the job as founding editor of
Star
Tribune Online, part of the process was to answer questions posed by a
Newspaper Guild group. I remember being asked about the ethical
challenges posed by allowing members of the public to directly post
their own information online. After all, the process is ripe for abuse
by political and other special-interest groups.
My answer stands today:
Be absolutely clear who is
speaking.
If there's a problem in so-called citizen journalism it's this: As it
plays out in some environments, that clarity just isn't there, and the
label "citizen journalism" contributes to misunderstandings.
Rothman is right: YourHub has a problem in that regard. For example,
this
political story has an unlinked byline. Who is
Joe Stengel? It looks
like a traditional online news presentation. It comes across as a piece
of traditional journalism when it's really a political plant.
I think asking members of the community to write traditionally
structured news stories, and then presenting those stories unfiltered as
if they are newspaper-style journalism, is a mistake.
That's why I have grown to prefer using the terms "participatory" and
"conversational." A site that is built around strong community
interaction will develop its own methods of fixing this problem --
quickly. An active community filters itself through a process of
criticism and response.
But some of the high-profile "citizen journalism" projects don't have
that kind of interactive participation -- or, for that matter, very much
traffic. Instead, they function primarily as online upload ports for
print publications.
That may be an economical way to generate content for print editions,
and those print editions may contribute to building stronger
communities. But it misses the community-building power of genuine
online interaction, and as Rothman has pointed out, it opens the door to
uncorrected abuse.
As for New West: It may use the tools of the blogosphere, but it's
really conventional journalism powered by a network of freelancers.
Each has an online bio, and it's quite clear who's speaking.
(Thanks to
Romenesko for the
citation.)
E-mail this item |
Add/View Feedback (1) |
QuickLink this item: A97439
E-Media Tidbits Archive
MAIN
|
Back to Top
