Citizen Journalism Forum – Who’s Making the News?
14.10 session moderated by Paul Holmes (Reuters), with (left to right on stage) George Brock (The Times), Helen Boaden (BBC), David Gyimah (Video Journalist), RachelNorthLondon (blogger), Andrew Hawken (MSN.com)
Live blogging:
Paul Holmes introduces the session, with a video of 4 minutes talking about citizen journalism’s role in the London bombings,
RachelNorthLondon (http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/) talks about blogging the London bombings, typing the story urban75 london community message board and eventually was asked to blog for BBC.
George – is it newsworthy? What goes through mind with any – does it help fill out the picture, and is it true? Difference between journalism and communication.
Helen – “It’s easier when you have a massive story.” Someone had the wit to film their clock, to record what time it happened. The “truth” is important in reporting.
David – Compare journalists with the army – conscripts are drafted to fight in the army. Compare professional journalists and citizen journalists. Characterize it as a dynamic flow. Citizens have always been repositories for stories but now say, “I want to tell the story myself.” Traditional media is grappling with this.
Andrew – A reader of RachelNorthLondon, and understood the story by reading her diary. But he says he would not have seen the content if it had not been for the BBC pointing to it. Blog content can add to your understanding of the story.
Paul – Was originally going to have Salam Pax (the Iraqi blogger) by satellite, which gave inside view of what was happening in Baghdad. Some doubted he was really in Baghdad. How to decide what’s true and credible when bombarded with so many messages?
Helen – BBC has a desk with good journalists who check the facts and determine “what’s real.” For example, Daily Mirror photos of soldier abuses were quickly identified as fakes by photo experts.
George – Anybody can be a publisher or broadcaster, consumers will choose, sifting, popularity rankings.
Paul – What questions do you ask yourselves when blogging?
Rachel – She first wrote about personal events, then became more political blogger, and “how it affected me.” She was originally a news hound, but became even more so after July 7. She checks out IndyMedia or Al Jazeera for other perspectives. You are pulling information and cross reference with your own experiences, and has caused her to question everything.
Andrew – Journalists are fallible, makes mistakes. Need to be transparent when they are wrong, to gain trust over time.
George – Papers should have the words “About 80% of this is true.”
Helen – Journalism is journalism, it’s not history.
Rachel – For the blogosphere 80% is pretty good, “because about 90% of it is rubbish.”
David – There are bloggers that we go to for news, and it’s allowed us to find new voices.
Paul – Values, is there a room for values on the MSN portals?
Andrew – Yes, we have to be 100% accurate in the headlines that are written.
Helen – Being “bullied by blog” is very real. Need to see the downsides as well as the upsides.
Rachel – Bloggers will to a certain extent settle on an issue and become a feeding frenzy. It’s representative of human nature, rather than journalism. People get excited about stories.
Question from Leonard Witt, PJ Net – People don’t need mainstream media to decide what’s the truth. Journalists have never been good at ruminating. How does the MSM see themsleves as part of the greater truth?
David – Journalism is also a business, there is not an issue with what Leonard’s saying.
George – MSM never set themselves up as the ones deciding the truth. Reliability is most important, and it’s an iterative process.
Question from South Asia perspective – Bloggers perceived to lack credibility, which is not valid.
Andrew – Important how good it is, how insightful it is.
Report from chat rooms – MSM is the necessary starting point of conversation for bloggers. Some sentiment there is a resentment of bloggers.
Panelists list blogs they read, including BBC, Slate, and others.
Question from audience – Blogs generally don’t feed back into mainstream media.
Helen – They do, by email and other ways.
Andrew – Regarding Iraq, citizen journalism as deepening understanding of a subject, corrective function,
Helen – Reminds folks of older form of citizen journalism – the phone-in. Provides an amazing diversity of opinions, plurality of voice, challenge to conventional wisdom.
Paul – But someone selects who gets heard.
Rachel – About 50,000 people read her blog a day
Question from Michael Tippett, NOW – If you have folks on the ground reporting, editorial views, and Technorati and Digg, where does MSM fit into the mix?
David – Citizen journalists don’t have to fit into the mainstream.
Group question – Where are we going to be in debate in one year’s time? What can we do to get there?
Andrew – I hope we won’t have the same debate. We need to move on, from journalist vs. blogger. The discussion should be about quality. Developers and technical people need to be involved
Rachel – Like Guardian and BBC let people feed directly into stories, introduce some element of moderation. Lightly moderated talk boards, feed into main story to enhance it.
David – Corporations to adapt will have greater dialogue. There is a way now to have a dialogue.
Helen – Rather than wanting something to happen, describe what will happen in time – There will be a terrific hoax that someone will take stock of their quality as a journalists. A citizen journalists will get hurt or “even worse” and who is going to look after this person?
George – Three things won’t change – words will be important, there will still be MSM, those “MSM will be upturned by something we can’t foresee.”
TAG: wemedia
Previous Comments
I keep hearing that phrase – 90% (or some other high number) of the blogosphere is rubbish.
What does that mean? Every blog out there is someone’s baby, someone’s words and deep thoughts. Any particular blog may not speak to everyone, but it speaks to its author.
To cover the blogosphere with a blanket of negativity takes away the experiences that any individual and perhaps mostly unheard blogger is trying to relay.
This doesn’t mean that any blog is accurate in some kind of news media sense. But any person’s experience and emotion is valid for that person, and certainly not “rubbish.”
I think the entire hit counter/ number of links from/ rankings really affect the perception of what is a good vs. “rubbish” blog.
I think it would be clearer if we talk about 2 things:
* News facts – which can come from citizen journalists – and I think the news media will continue to present the overall picture of what is happening
* Comment – and here I think the bloggers are very important. In particular I have the feeling that normal media does not think like I do – or like my friends do. They seem to have an agenda and are tolerant ofcompanies that you shouldn’t be tolerant of – and at least sometimes to politicians that you shouldn’t be tolerant of.
I think that part of the reason that we have been so slow to respond to global warming is that it has not been reported with urgently in the media. Because it upsets the powerful.
What has not been mentioned is that it’s the job of the media to speak the truth to power – and currently they aren’t great at that.
Bloogers have nothing to lose and that’s why they can be outspoken – they’re the voice of the people! And they have passiion about what they do – they really want things to change – they don’t just want to report the news.
So I think part of this debate should be about the overall role of the media – and then if that is in place, it would change the way forward!!
Cheers
Mike
Most of this conversation seems to be focused on the same old thing: reporting.
There’s no discussion about interaction, and no discussion on transparency. Credible bloggers have transpanency and the ability to interact, which is something that journalists, for the most part, are *not* allowed to engage in at the same level that bloggers are capalbe.
Even if they are “disaster bloggers”–getting noteriety thru the old-fashioned “if it bleeds, it leads” way, their transparency and ability to interact are key components to their success.
Eduardo is also very right on another level–numbers and links, right now, show authority. People go to blogs where there is a perception of authority based on numbers. Hence, the biggest “citizen journalists” are often those folks who used to be journalists. When there isn’t a on-the scene disaster, a person’s “cred” or “authority” is what makes them a credible cit. j.
So much of this polemic has been focused on the antagonism between the citizen journalist and the professional journalist. What of the symbiosis between the two? It seems that at every point in this discussion the coexistence of CJs and PJs is mutually beneficial. I have no idea, but I would imagine that CJ blogs increase traffic to nearly all mainstream news sites.
If the issue is truth and a public better informed to make political decisions then I would say that the combination of the two will better achieve this end, or at least making available truer forms of the truth. Even the antagonism has produced fruitful debate.
Who will guard the guards? Who has guarded the press in its role as the fourth estate? Will bloggers be a check to the traditional media that people have become increasingly disenchanted with?
George: Does it [presumably blogging] help fill out the picture, and is it true? Difference between journalism and communication
+
David: Citizens have always been repositories for stories but now say, “I want to tell the story myself.”
We can’t see the difference George. That’s why you’re redundant.
David: Journalism is also a business
Err, no it isn’t – most bloggers are not paid to do what they do, just as most artists are not paid to do what they do. Of course, that might be because most citizens have seen too much artistry in professional journalism…
Helen: There will be a terrific [presumably Net-based] hoax [and therefore?] someone will take stock of their [bloggers?] quality as a journalists
To quote Baloo the Bear: “Get with the rhythm Baggy!” Hoaxes are a part of everyday Net life today. Hoaxes are a part of everyday life everywhere. The quality of journalism is highly variable. You, no doubt, believe everything you read in the Daily Sport… GIVE ME A BREAK!
Helen: A citizen journalist will get hurt or “even worse” and who is going to look after this person?
At last, a serious subject, but one that requires far more attention than we can give it here, as this story illustrates:
http://www.rsf.org/country-47.php3?id_mot=246&Valider=OK
Judith Miller worked for the New York Times, but she was still thrown in pokey for not revealing her sources. So much for Big Media who trumpet their independence and their ‘protection’ for ‘professional’ journalists who live in countries that [supposedly] value free speech and [claim] leading roles among the World’s democracies, and who never tire of telling the rest of us how it’s done. Right on. We let the Net lose anonimity at our utmost peril.
George: …things won’t change – words will be important, there will still be MSM… etc.
Dream on George. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Journalism is not history, but, should journalists need to put their stories into historical context?