|
The concept is noble and egalitarian -- Citizen Journalists. Anyone and everyone reporting news and feeding into some vast system that collects and disseminates it for all to see.
We already have that in the web and, in particular, the blogosphere. Those of us who blog are Citizen Journalists.
A few months ago a website called NowPublic announced it intends to become the world's largest news agency. The Vancouver-based company, which is already listed by Time Magazine as one of the top 50 websites of 2007, got more than $10 million in financing to help fuel its growth.
NowPublic's plan is to let anyone with a digital camera or camera/cellphone upload images and "news snippets" for dissemination on the internet. Some of the money from the financing will be to "reward" people who upload stories or images NowPublic is talking about building partnerships with newspapers, magazines, TV networks and wire services, which will have access to NowPublic material.
NowPublic says it has some 120,000 "contributing reporters" in more than 140 countries. Co-founder Len Brody is quoted as saying, back in July, "I promise you, in 18 months we will be, by reach, the largest news agency in the world."
Impressive. Or is it, perhaps, more scary than impressive?
Citizen journalism is a great idea and it's one that is sure to spread as media, starved for information, will rely on non-professionals who feed pix and information. Some newspapers are already relying on a network of citizen journalists for local news where staff reporters just can't cover everything. But most of these citizen journalists have established some element of credibility with staff reporters and editors so the reliability of information can be trusted.
But imagine a network of 120,000 people all over the world, sending in pix, video and news they've stumbled upon. Does NowPublic, or anyone for that matter, have the staff to monitor and vette the information? Are there enough editors to examine news, look for the holes and contradiction, search carefully for hidden agendas before putting it onto the feed that will then go round the world and become news?
I doubt it very much.
Without proper editing, we can become buried by erroneous or intentionally wrong information. Once it seeps into the mainstream news channels, misinformation can take on a life of its own. Untold damage can be done, hurting individuals, reputations, companies, governments.
Even with the checks of proper editing in real news organizations, we've seen examples of fraud. We've seen doctored photos of bombings in the middle east, perpetrated on Reuters. The Boston Globe, Washington Post and even The New York Times have had star reporters invent or exaggerate information and quotes for the sake of adding emphasis or excitement to stories.
If it can happen to such top professional reporting organizations, just imagine what can hapen when "anyone and everyone" can file a story or submit a photo. It scares me to think what some people might do for money, a cause or just their 15 minutes of fame.
Citizen journalism is a grand idea, but let's take it slowly and carefully. There's too much at stake to be hasty and sloppy.
|
Comments
David, I'm with you about the need for editorial control and verification. It's critical.
Where I think the impact of this idea might be is some fresh takes, perspectives from other willing contributors. A key interest for me is whether the citizen journalism will get us back to more fact-based reporting and less opinion/slant/agenda intertwined in the article content, or whether things stay the same. God forbid they get worse.
It will be an interesting experiment.
Posted by: Paul Barsch | 11.01.07
Fresh perspectives on the news would be a good thing. My concern is how factual some of those perspectives might be.
Posted by: David Reich "my 2 cents" | 11.01.07
Fresh perspectives on the news would be a good thing. My concern is how factual some of those perspectives might be.
Posted by: David Reich "my 2 cents" | 11.01.07
Hi David,
This is Michael Tippett, one of the other co-founders of NowPublic.
Your concerns are valid and I share them but at NowPublic we think that the marketplace - and our site in particular - will evolve in the same way that ebay did. We think that the community itself will regulate behavior. If I can buy a house on Ebay from someone I've never met then presumably I can buy a news report - so long as the seller has a sound reputation.
Please keep the commentary coming. We appreciate the feedback.
Best,
Michael, NowPublic.com
Posted by: Michael Tippett | 11.01.07
At the mesh07 conference (Toronto, May 2007) an optional panel discussion was "Digital Blinders - Are We an Inch Wide and a Mile Deep?" One of its panelists was Mark Schneider, "...the Actual News Guy at NowPublic.com. Mark was the first senior editor, new media at CTV National News, and hosted the network's Digital Desk, a daily news feature, until 2002. He has taught at the Medill School of Journalism in Evanston, Ill., and at the University of British Columbia."
NowPublic was definitely in the inch-wide part of the equation for the discussions. (Nora Young from CBC Radio was the mile-deep advocate. The third panelist, Mark Federman, was more the trend identifier, the former chief strategist at the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology, University of Toronto.)
What I like about a platform like NowPublic is the inclusiveness/lack of gatekeeping of contributors, from a wide variety of sources. Schneider talked about how the platform allowed community activists from around the world (including developing countries) to get their stories, aspirations and concerns out to a global audience.
What I dislike about any site that relies on "citizen journalists" is the lack of vetted research. Plus a dearth of critical thought, which seems endemic to things posted quick and dirty, where being timely is more important than ensuring that information is factual, comprehensive and objective. I like a little more depth (if not always a mile) to my information sources, which is probably why I find the current "Media Snackers" meme that is roaring around a small corner of the blogosphere rather self-indulgent and boring.
I did appreciate the fact that this rather esoteric topic and intelligent discussion (all three panelists were quite thoughtful and articulate) was included on the agenda of a conference that is focused primarily on social media.
Posted by: Judy Gombita | 11.02.07
Judy, we seem to share the same hopes and the same concerns about citizen journalism and sites like MowPublic.
Michael, thanks for checking in here and I appreciate your willingness to listen. The eBay analogy is ok, but I still believe sites like yours will need to do some vetting of your own, rather than rely on readers to eventually know who's reliable and who's not. Otherwise, you're just a giant blog of sorts, and not a real news service.
Good luck with the venture. We'll be watching.
Posted by: David Reich "my 2 cents" | 11.02.07