The Reportr.net Aug. 7, 2008, story "Is citizen media creating a journalism of participation?" suggests that "journalism may be moving away from an expert-driven information system to a journalism of participation."
With that as a backdrop, my contribution to this exercise is that a non-traditional approach may be as simple as commenting on a story on the web site of the news service--be it print or broadcast by design. That's participation.
The question then, as posed in the referenced article, is that by commenting on a story, citizens are coming in at the end of the journalism process. So, that begs the question, is posting a comment at the end of a story on the Star-Tribune citizen journalism? Is an individual's comments, however well thought-out or explained, a journalistic product? If not, what then constitutes a journalistic product? Is it limited to original reporting? Or, does contributing to original reporting by adding another perspective, as in the form of a comment, another form or original reporting? What if the comment adds new information from observation that was not otherwise known? Is that citizen journalism?
I think we have to be careful when we talk about what constitutes participation by a citizen to fulfill one's role as a member of society. Does a citizen that practices passive participation by being well-read and an active role by exercising their right to vote fufill their role as a good citizen. I think so. Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that being well-read and exercising their right to vote is only one part of the role of a good citizen. I agree with Kovach and Rosenstiel in their Bill of Right's and Responsibilities, 5)A Public Forum, that if news providers now provide channels by which citizens can participate to interact with journalists through "letters, e-mail, phone contacts, chat room discussions space to write guest columns, opportunities to make story suggestions, and act as ombudsmen..."(p.251) then we as we as citizens have a responsibility "to show up at the public forums or to send e-mail or letters to the editors." In that regard I believe we are acting as good citizens and journalists because we are all in a newly developing pact with each other. "The elements of of journalism are principles that apply to citizens as well as to members of the news business, and citizens have to do their part to sustain the relationship." (p.252) I think comments to on-line stories are journalistic examples,as are letters to the editor in a newspaper. To be passive- well-read and turning out on Election Day- isn't enough anymore in this new game with new rules.
John your point is well reasoned and argued. The problem lies in the actual practice. I waded through all of the comments to the Strib's editorial endorsement of Obama last evening and about 50% for the Coleman endorsement and frankly it's enough to make me stop reading comments!
I don't think blogs require moderators in general, but far too often the discourse (if you can call it that) breaks down to childish name calling and troll-baiting at such a breakneck speed so as to make rational and reasoned communication pointless.
Of course it matters where one is reading comments, but can't more be done? Or are my expectations too high?
Ah, yes. Where the theory rubber meets the road and gets run over by the bus of practice. (OK, that was awful. Moving on.) I think the comments section should be moderated. The responsibilities we have as journalists include a responsibility for reasoned discourse, not slinging epithets and slime. Who does the moderating, though, right?
I like the metaphor. But, yeah, who moderates? What are the guidelines? It's such a slippery slope, isn't it?
Even by saying the postings are moderated there is the possibility of discouraging people (at best) or inhibiting free speech (at worst).
Of course if the answers were easy, it would be done already.
Post a Comment