Citizen Journalism

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'.

Interview with Robert Brown, President at RDB Consulting

(Editor's Note: When we saw the title of the "white paper" that RDB Consulting Firm Inc. founder Robert Brown helped write, "Silent Presses: The Future of Print Media," ...well, that said it all, "Silent Presses," and Mr. Brown sounded like a guy whose views we'd like to hear. So here they are.)

Do social media have much of an impact in your consulting business in how your staff works or how the public relates to you?

I do not yet have a FaceBook page, and I am still learning how to use Twitter effectively, but I use LinkedIn constantly. I especially like to use it before an interview, so that the person's background is fresh in my mind when I meet them.

Do you foresee much impact from social media in major news operations such as newspapers and TV news, or in the future of journalism generally?

Yes, in our white paper, Silent Presses, I interviewed Mike Orren, the founder and manager of Pegasus News, a blog web site dedicated to local news and culture in Dallas, Texas. Orren is a very sophisticated practitioner of web analytics, really a pioneer in this field starting several years ago, and by now he has it down to an art. He uses the data to determine the content most relevant to Pegasus News readers. I plan to drill down in more detail how web analytics can be used to increase online advertising revenue in a future article, but, as we illustrate in Silent Presses, sophisticated use of Web analytics can be used to pinpoint customers. Web analytics will soon drive major news operations as well. Web analytics is the mechanism that will drive the proliferation of targeted messaging across the web to users via the ever-growing array of social media tools, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Digg and so forth. Orren calls this convergence of media into one vast network “Web 3.0.” The idea of a single website as a source of content is quickly becoming archaic. As Orren says in Silent Presses, “With Web 3.0, it no longer matters where the information lives. Once you post something, it will be quickly disseminated via social networks to those users who care about the information.”

There seems to be a quick turnover/burnout rate in Twitter and devices such as Facebook and YouTube seem used mainly by the young. Whether these devices can become or remain profitable is in doubt. Do you see these as permanent limitations on the scope of social media?

I am not sure I agree with your first statement. I’ve read that people over 40 are one of the fastest growing user segments for FaceBook. Increasingly, businesses and non-profit agencies are building Facebook sites. Twitter is a little more challenging to those of us who did not grow up texting on a mobile phone, but just yesterday I read Jack and Suzy Welch’s column in Business Week extolling the benefits of Twitter. If Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, is tweeting, you can be sure the rest of corporate America is fast on his heels.

Today’s headlines are about the results of yesterday’s presidential election in Iran, and the big story there is that the first thing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ruling government did to squelch opposition protests was to shut down Facebook and turn off cell phone communications.

In 2008 social media in the U.S. reached a tipping point coincident with the election of Barack Obama. We have all read the stories or experienced how the Obama campaign so skillfully mobilized thousands of volunteers via social media.

I believe that social media represents a transformative cultural shift in how we receive and transmit information

How social media can be monetized and turn a profit so that it can continue to flourish has not been completely worked out yet, but I’m also not sure this question is being asked in the right way. Referring again to Iran, a writer in a recent Newsweek notes how he sees a cell phone sticking out of the back pocket of almost everyone riding on a motorcycle or scooter in Iran. This same phenomenon is true throughout the third world. Cell phones have become ubiquitous for almost everyone on the planet living above basic subsistence level. People use cell phones to send and receive tweets and text messages, so that means that cell phones are the predominant social media device. Cell phone makers and cell phone service providers around the world long ago figured out how to run profitable businesses, so how can we say that social media is not profitable? Now, if the companies developing social media software are giving their products away free to the cell phone companies or Internet service providers, then maybe these software developers need to re-think their business model, but we can’t say that social media is not profitable.

Of the various social media, do you see any one in particular as having the greatest potential on the media or generally in society? Any that will fade?

As I said above, I think Twitter already is having a profound effect on the process of democratization, in both the developed and developing world.

I think with the rise of what Orren calls web 3.0 we will see a decline in the number of and interest in single-issue blog sites. I’ve always questioned the proliferation of blogs in that much of the content is too long and of questionable quality.

Web 3.0 allows for a sort of natural selection process in that content that is of value and interest to people will tend to be disseminated more widely. With the widespread use of agents and RSS feeds, there will not be a need to periodically visit blog site and plow through dozens of entries to find information of interest. It’s important, though, not to assume that what is picked up and scattered throughout the Web will be of high quality or truthful. Unfortunately, the opposite is probably true.

Which would mean more to you, a Twitter message from someone or an old-fashioned handwritten note from that same person? Do social media represent a dumbing down of America, a liberation of new possibilities, or both, or neither?

Definitely an old-fashioned written note. I keep a supply of stationary at hand, and typically send several notes to friends and colleagues each week. There is nothing like the personal touch, and people always appreciate the fact that you took the time to write the note, address it, and take it to the post office. I always really appreciate the handwritten notes I receive.

Social media is a tool. Just as you can use pen and paper to send something silly, hateful, insightful or kind to a friend, you can do the same with social media. The stereotype we have of social media is of the teenaged girl sending 50 or 100 texts a day to her friends. Nevertheless you have to give this girl and her friends credit for being early adopters and seeing the potential of this new form of communication. As adults, we have the obligation to ourselves and others to use these tools wisely and constructively.

Tennessee women's basketball coach Pat Summit complained that players on the team bus were texting each other rather than speaking face to face. Your reaction?

I see this all the time, and it bothers me—people tend to take themselves out of reality by getting so involved in texting or twittering. We saw the same problem 10 years ago with cell phones, with people answering them in inappropriate situations. Slowly social norms caught up to the new technology, and now it is uncommon for people to answer their phones in movie theaters, conferences or other inappropriate situations. I think once the novelty wears off, the same thing will occur with social media. Once the general consensus is that it is no longer “cool” but rather “rude” to text in certain situations, then this behavior will diminish.

Big-name athletes and entertainment celebrities seem to have taken to Twitter because 1) they can control their message, 2) the message is short and nontaxing, 3) they bypass reporters, 4) they can have "contact" with fans that really isn't contact and 5) fans end up thinking they have contact though they really don't. The Obama campaign used social media for organizing and a means of getting out the message. Can you see an expansion of uses of social media, perhaps taking a serious turn with politicians and public officials using them to create better policies?

Members of Congress have rapidly adopted are already using Twitter to gauge public response. I also cite an example in Silent Presses of a state official who changed a tax form in response to a twitter he received.

There have been abuses in the social media such as parody sites allowed on Twitter that pretend to be a celebrity's thoughts but really aren't. Is there much abuse in your opinion and if so, how can it be prevented?

Soon there will be a lawsuit or two filed by an offended celebrity, and the celebrity will receive damages. Once this occurs a couple of times, this problem will go away.

Do you have any other thoughts on social media you wish to share?

Social media is a good example of the symbiosis of technology and culture. Due to technological advances of the last 10 years (including the build out of a sturdy broadband/satellite communications infrastructure), we are seeing a convergence of media into a steady stream of information available anyplace at any time. In addition, people are communicating more often with more people than ever before in history. It’s as if the long heralded information revolution has finally reached the streets, and now everyone is a citizen in this revolution. Like all revolutions, we don’t know how this will turn out—it is at once thrilling and frightening. I’m an optimist. As a journalist, I believe that there is never too much information or communication. I think that in the long-term, the rise of social media will have a positive effect on our world and it citizens. At any rate, it’s going to be interesting.

Before Mr. Brown formed his business in 2001 ... it's at www.rdbconsulting.biz ... he worked as a consultant for Accenture and held positions with Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the U.S. Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory and Texas Instruments.