|
You are a pioneer in citizen journalism, having contributed to Wikinews (Wikipedia's sister project) for quite some time now. Can you tell us how you got involved and what you enjoy about the project?
BM: I have to admit up-front to being a committed geek; yes, from childhood.
I took toys to bits to see how they worked, spent hours with Lego and constructor sets, read every single book I could get my hands on, and even figured out how to get the local library to buy a US$100 book for me to borrow explaining how to construct high-powered lasers. Frankly, thank God I did that 30 years ago. The insatiable appetite for knowledge I had then - combined with finding 'The Anarchist's Cookbook' on the Internet - would, today, see me locked up or earning myself a Darwin Award before the age of twelve. I may not be your typical citizen journalist, but there seems to be a degree of inevitability to getting involved in it.
In any case, I had access to the Internet for a long time before I encountered any wiki. And, of course, I first found Wikipedia - late to the game. On Wikipedia you might know a subject that is not well covered, or be prepared to carry out extensive research. Where I was interested in contributing was well-covered by people whose names I recognised as experts in their fields - who better to write the entry on the OpenVMS operating system than Stephen Hoffman? (Who'd worked on the thing for something like 20+ years). I could not see me finding an uncovered area and doing enough research to create a high-quality article, something would really have to interest me to do that sort of work. Wikipedia? I admire the people that do it justice, but I don't have that much confidence in myself.
I ran across Wikinews around the time of the Boxing Day Tsunami, and opened an account. It was a month or two before I wrote my first article, but I got great positive comments, enough to make me persist. There was an instant feedback seeing my work on the project's front page, and less of the near-painful academic rigour that I believe Wikipedia deserves approached with.
One of the things writing on Wikinews has done is make me an extremely critical news consumer. Who is paying to present the facts to me in this way? How do they benefit from doing such? For that I love Ian Hislop's Private Eye; there is that healthy cynicism, and you are fully aware of the conclusions you are being led to. Equally so if I, as a citizen journalist, tell you I threw eggs at Margaret Thatcher during the late 80's, that does not stop you judging how I attempt to report professionally; it's just highlighting an incident that colours my perspective on the world. For all Wikimedia projects their neutrality concept is a near-unobtainable idealistic goal; Wikinews strives for that, doing so is an educational experience for every contributor.
I can't say all other Wikinewsies come away with the same insight into news sources they've grown up with, and a similar healthy degree of scepticism about them. But, the whole sense of satisfaction to me is practising journalism as a 'craft' and encouraging others to do so. You learn the more you practice, just like learning to play a musical instrument. You encounter some incredibly enthusiastic people and there is great satisfaction in getting them to look critically at their world-view and improve how they present stories. If you engage in citizen journalism, and don't become more critical, you're doing it wrong. If you start by thinking Fox News is "Fair and Balanced", don't bother; just get another bag of Cheetos from the convenience store and, in Frank Zappa's words, soak up "the garbage that they feed you".
Some experts argue that citizen journalism could save newspapers. Do you agree, and if so how?
BM: For the most part, citizen journalism does not have the resources to save newspapers, unless their content stands up to critical analysis. Citizen journalism - potentially - has the power to kill worthless newspapers; if you report nonsense that does not stand up to scrutiny then you can expect to be called on it. I think 'RatherGate' proved that fairly effectively.
How newspapers or other mainstream media sources could be as-they-are saved by citizen journalists is a whole other ball of wax. I have absolutely no idea how that could work out in the long run, but it certainly isn't what seems prevalent at the moment - recruiting the most ill-informed and highly opinionated 'citizen journalists' on the basis of how many page views they might add to your website.
What makes a good citizen journalist?
BM: Oh, I'm a terrible person to ask this question. My answer would be 'ingrained cynicism', and an itch to - in Bob Woodward style - "Follow the money".
Every citizen journalist would likely answer this question differently, and while I might find celebrity news shallow and of no interest to me, I've seen a fellow Wikinewsie put enough effort into such to end up employed to do it full-time.
What are some obstacles do you think citizen journalist face, and what are some possible solutions.
BM: Citizen journalists face pretty much the same problems as anyone else reporting the news. That is, how do you work such that your audience finds your writing credible? And, for your own sense of self-respect, how can you be viewed as credible without resorting to cheap talk-show tactics?
But, if you're going to do any subject justice there has to be a tangible reward. Well, in any case, there has to be some sort of reward. If you are not making money every time someone views your reportage or analysis, then why work so hard to produce it? Who and where you publish with may restrict you, but ground-up support for your analysis methods and commentary can make you a key player. It's a long game. Most citizen journalists would love a chance to make money from their endeavours; right now they have to settle for peer respect, or sell out and do paid-for product reporting.
If you can work within that, and the editorial restrictions of the site or newspaper your work is published in, then there are - realistically - no obstacles. If you can't do so as part of a community you have a much steeper mountain to climb before a noticeable number of people read anything you write. I used to play around on some of the techie websites that were early "Web 2.0", and you build a reputation with the audience through being articulate, reasoned, informative, and enjoyable to read. (For an example of that, Slashdot's "New York County Lawyer" shows how a seemingly unrelated area of expertise can make your commentary credible).
Citizen journalism can never win through telling people what to think, it's showing them how to think, and being able to justify the position you hold when challenged on it.
What advice would you give newspapers who are trying to recruit more high quality citizen journalists their sites?
BM: I have to say I do not think I am qualified to answer this question - if anyone actually is. The bare-faced cheeky answer is, "Employ me!"
Newspapers break down into so many sub-categories, cover wildly varying geographic regions, and collectively have a smorgasbord of editorial positions. For every newspaper that exists today there would be different criteria in selecting the citizen journalists they should recruit. Regardless of the newspaper, I think one of the most important things they should consider is nurturing talent. Are you a local newspaper? 90%+ of your income from print adverts targeted at people in the area? Then you should be looking for the local citizen journalists who sit next to their police scanner and report on the drug busts and local fires. Assume you will have to invest in improving their writing skills, be relaxed about them publishing elsewhere, and pay them enough money to make it worth their while to give you first option on material. If they could afford to, they would be on the scene at these fires and such; Wikinews has a few contributors who put that much dedication into tracking local events. If these people are getting to the scene by bicycle before your paid reporters, you're perhaps paying the wrong people.
In any case, citizen journalists such as myself have not spent four years at college studying the subject. This has not, nor ever should, be a requirement for entering the trade. There are still serious faults in my writing style, and I need as many examples as possible of where I go wrong and how to correctly express something. So, like anyone who takes citizen journalism seriously, the lack of an experienced and critical editor is where I see a need for the mainstream to get involved.
Is there anything you would like to add?
BM: I looked at the recent interviews your site has carried on this topic. The one that immediately jumped to my attention was with the Christian Science Monitor. I cannot remember ever reading anything they have published that is biased/bigoted/uninformed; so, if there is anything I think is important to add, it is that sources such as the CSM and citizen journalists need to bang heads and work out some way to make sure quality journalistic work continues to be produced and widely publicised. Call me an intellectual snob if you like, but it's the Red Tops of Rupert Murdoch and their ilk that need to die out - I would love to see heavyweight publications working with citizen journalists towards such an end. Online anarchy can throw up some real oddities Would your publication carry this particularly scathing satirical commentary?(http://b3ta.com/board/9710934) Letters to the editor are so last-century, and some of the people whose comment you should carry call themselves "/b/tards". (Editor's Note: a /b/tard is a slang word for an elite force of the internet. Many can be found hanging out in 4chan's /b/ imageboard.)
The Internet is the modern-day battleground, and it's full-on memetic warfare. Ignore it at your peril. And, if you do, expect to end up discredited like Dan Rather. Citizen journalists are upping their game, so up yours.
Brian's latest article for Wikinews, Listening to you at last: EU plans to tap cell phones, published on Oct. 19, 2009, involves considerable investigate research into the European Union's approach to 'homeland security'.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
