That citizen journalism is rising in popularity is no question or assumption. It is a fact. In all forms of media, be it print, broadcast or online, citizens are standing up and having their voices heard. But what does that mean for the journalist? And what does that mean for the journalist's audience?
As Melissa, Shannon and Aaron illustrated in this week's seminar presentation, citizen journalism, or public journalism, has become increasingly popular since the advent of the internet and the growing accessibility to digital technology. Everyday people who are in the right place at the right time, and with the right technical equipment, have the ability to show the rest of the world their news. The best example of this, that I can personally think of, is the Hudson River plane crash in America. The first footage broadcast to the world of this extraordinary event was taken by nearby citizens who managed to capture the event on their phones/cameras.
* You can even see postings on sites such as Twitter:
http://twitpic.com/135xa
and Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregorylam/3200086900/
Such sites allow for the immediate dispersion of news and information to mass audiences, all thanks to the humble internet.
Other forms of media, such as broadcast and print, have also jumped on the citizen journalism bandwagon, asking audiences 'what they think' through polls. The popular press has accepted this form of citizen journalism wholeheartedly, with television programs such as Sunrise encouraging viewers to vote in their online or mobile polls and write in to the 'soap box'.
However, citizen journalism isn't always such a great thing. While I don't personally believe it will ever take over the role from of the journalist, it perhaps encourages lazy journalism. For instance, journalists can simply see a photo online, or read someone's Tweet and report the story. Journalists need to check, then double check, then triple check their information. Especially when it's from 'unreliable' sources such as social networking sites. If journalists check their information, this collaboration of knowledge will result in a better news-environment for the audience, with more sources and more outlets. However if the journalist doesn't check their information, audiences are left doubting both the journalist and the citizen journalist. And then where would that lead us?
Bibliography:
Cellan-Jones, R, 2009, Twitter and a classic picture, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/01/twitter_and_a_classic_picture.html>
Huffington, A, 2009, Arianna Huffington on Citizen Journalism, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJ0SVkuK44>
Krums, J, 2009, There's a plane crash in the Hudson. I'm on the ferry going to pick up people. Crazy., Twitpic, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://twitpic.com/photos/jkrums>
Lam Pak Ng, G, 2009, Plane crash into Hudson River, Flickr, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregorylam/3200086900/>
Jess, I definitely agree that for the time being the role of the journalist is fairly safe. But I also think you make a valid argument for checking your sources! Perhaps this is another of the dangers of citizen journalism. Are we really 'willing to believe anything these days'?
ReplyDelete