|
 We are told nowadays that the concept of 'citizen journalism' is new and exciting. But, in fact, it goes back much further that our accepted forms of mass-communication. Before newspapers, radio and TV, most people received their information by word of mouth and news from the next village or region was widely consumed upon the arrival of someone from outside the immediate locality.
The world's first newspapers were no more than sheets - often of inconsequential gossip - produced by the very first citizen journalists and distributed in the surrounding neighbourhood.
Today, of course, inexpensive computers, digital cameras and the internet have presented individuals with a new chance to reach audiences big and small with their reportage, photographs and views. And it would seem the challenge this presents to the world's media moguls is partly their own fault.
Disillusionment with traditional media is widespread. In a recent poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, sixty-five percent of respondents thought that most news organizations try to ignore or cover up any mistakes and almost four out of five suspected a media company would hesitate to carry negative stories about a corporation from which it received substantial advertising revenues.
Whilst most people still get much of their news, which may shape their views, from radio, TV or newspapers, a fast-increasing number are looking to - and, as importantly, contributing to - other outlets: weblogs, chat rooms, message boards, wikis and mobile computing. The success of these platforms can be seen in my part of the world through bulletin boards in Bangladesh, SMS in the Philippines and, in South Korea, the popular and commercially successful Ohmynews with its motto, "Every Citizen is a Reporter."
And the traditional media are beginning to turn to citizens when reporting the news.
Of course, people have always been asked their views and tipped off journalists. But now, increasingly, source information is delivered by non-professionals.
The pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib jail, for instance, were taken by other soldiers. Much of the immediate coverage of the tsunami disaster in 2004, both video and stills, was captured by holidaymakers. And the now famous shots of the immediate aftermath of the London underground bombings in July 2005 were taken by a passenger inside one of the coaches - a quick-thinking neighbor with a video camera caught the later arrests of alleged bombers in the same city.
All this new information, much of it in cyberspace, poses many new questions. The very openness of the internet, without geographical borders, means many governments struggle to control news and views they dislike.
And rumor - unsubstantiated, libelous and sometimes dangerous - feeds much net content. So who controls and edits what is online?
If an editor receives a story from an anonymous source, does he or she take the tried-and-tested route and sit on it, while extensive research to test its veracity is initiated? Or, in an increasingly competitive and cut-throat media-world, do you run with the story straight away to be ahead of your competitors?
Then there are the threats to individual professionals. Are their livelihoods threatened by the spread of the amateur - who may well replace them? How will circulation, sales and advertising be affected by new competition? Will stand-alone citizen journalism sites compete successfully with institutional media?
The future requires a rethinking of the role of the messenger. Rather than seeing ourselves as ‘experts' who deliver the news, we should see ourselves as partners in a collaborative process, where the message is organic and pliable, and capable of being shaped by the very people whose lives we report on.
Otherwise journalists, who think of themselves as being in the centre of the universe, might find the universe has moved on while they populate a deserted galaxy.
This article was contributed to Media Helping Media by Shahidul Alam, photojournalist and MD of the Drik network. www.drik.net
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
In fact, this is precisely the point made in an essay that I co-authored with Sir Arthur Clarke in the Outlook magazine in Oct 2005 - see:
http://outlookindia.com/fullprint.asp?choice=2&fodname=20051017&fname=KC+Clarke&sid=1
As we said in that essay: "Historically, organised and commercialised mass media have existed only in the past five centuries, since the first newspapersas we know thememerged in Europe. Before the printing press was invented, all news was local and there were few gatekeepers controlling its flow. Having evolved highly centralised systems of media for half a millennium, we are now returning to a second era of mass mediain the true sense of that term."
Historically, organised and commercialised mass media have existed only in the past five centuries, since the first newspapersas we know thememerged in Europe. Before the printing press was invented, all news was local and there were few gatekeepers controlling its flow. Having evolved highly centralised systems of media for half a millennium, we are now returning to a second era of mass mediain the true sense of that term.
My personal view is that citizen journalists don't threaten professional journalists: we will soon find an acceptable co-existence and, hopefully, a symbiosis. Let me go as far as to say: every professional journalist who can be replaced by a citizen journalist -- should be!
canshould