Big bucks for CJ network

NowPublic Gets $10.6 Million For Crowd Sourced News

Social media

A citizen journalist from Moldova

Fruit of the vine

Wired.com has published AssignmentZero’s experience reporting on crowdsourcing. I was privileged to be involved in the project, contributing an interview with Buzzmachine founder Jeff Jarvis. You can read it here.

Cam phone hailed/reviled for images and sounds at Virginia Tech

Citizen Journalism in its rawest form took center stage earlier this week when a student’s imagery and sound of the shooting scene – captured on his cellphone – was broadcast around the world. I’ve purposely waited to comment on this, allowing for the dust to settle on the pros and cons of what became a central focus of the Va Tech shootings. While I am a strong advocate of this kind of citizen reporting, I concede to some discomfort with the voyeuristic nature of the images and sounds recorded as the shooter worked his way through a student dorm. Still, it might just be this kind of raw, intimate exposure to such senseless violence that prompts society to re-examine some values, including media violence, security procedures in public spaces and gun control. Big questions, difficult answers. But thanks to an enterprising young man with the presence of mind to use his cellphone video camera, we were – for a few horrifying seconds – in the middle of it all.

Jeff Jarvis re-visited

Like it or not, we need labels. they bring form to what’s being considered or discussed. To that end, I think there is a distinction between the terms “crowdsourcing” and “citizen journalism”. Crowdsourcing suggests a kind of perpetual and pervasive FTP Fest, where anyone can contribute to our collective understanding by posting ideas, suggestions, references, links on just about anything. Wikipedia is our best and longest running example of this.

But it hardly is journalism. For me, citizen journalism suggest a spontaneous response by “regular Joes and Janes” to find and report about previously unknown information or circumstances, or in the case of breaking news, on developments as they are happening (see Katrina, 9/11, et al). The distinction is that citizen journalism can fill in the reporting gaps left unattended by the mainstream media. Serious citizen journalism is to be the community’s eyes and ears – where none currently exist – about issues or events that traditional media choose to ignore.

The best example of this kind of grassroots reportage is observation of and reporting about local government functions: the school board meetings, the zoning board hearings, examination of the daily police report. While this kind of reporting is done by traditional weekly or daily newspapers in smaller communities where news is supremely local, it is our large metropolitan areas where the traditional media are distracted by chasing big headline-generating “news”, often at the expense of events and developments that touch people where they live – in their neighborhood.

Jarvis speaks of official, professional journalists in arguing against a term he no longer likes – citizen journalism – suggesting it can be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. While agreeing that trained journalists usually make the best journalists, I’m willing to leave open the door for the less-credentialed among us. Though never comfortable talking about myself, my professional journey could serve as Exhibit One in this case. For nearly 25 years I was a successful television reporter and anchor, having never taken a single journalism course while in college. My undergraduate degree in business administration served me well, combined with “street smarts” and careful observation of others with more experience and/or journalism credentials. This is all to say that good, effective reporting can be done by anyone who heeds the basic rules of journalism. Jarvis is quite correct that anyone can commit an act of journalism. But he also suggests the “certification of official journalists by someone”. Who exactly will this be? While one must pass an examination and periodically renew a state-issued license to be a barber, no such oversight exists for journalists, save the weeding out of untalented and biased practitioners by the media marketplace.

Jarvis is right on the money when declaring that citizen journalists gain credibility through transparency. Indeed, the willingness to recognize and correct mistakes is one of citizen journalism and blogging’s greatest appeals. Jarvis notes that his readers are all too willing to point out errors or oversights, and that he is quick to respond. To not do so he risks losing credibility. This, of course, is a good thing, a very good thing. And, it is the thing about which news readers and viewers have long complained. In traditional media, mistakes too often go unacknowledged and when they are, the correction usually comes too little, too late. It is this transparent, public oversight that gives crowdsourcing or citizen journalism or whatever term we wish to employ it’s greatest value.

I think we’re experiencing a rare event – the opportunity to fundamentally change traditional journalism, a mostly honorable but occasionally flawed profession. Jarvis correctly notes that traditional media are well-served by paying attention to citizen journalism initiatives, and by opening their tent just a bit wider. Television news was an early adopter of the so-called citizen journalist. By cozying up to video shot by “amateurs”, TV newscasts have long featured dramatic pictures of spot news events and natural disasters. Those media organizations that find ways to embrace citizen journalism will benefit most when their readers and viewers can also be reporters.

Crowdsourcing and Jeff Jarvis

I recently completed an email interview with Jeff Jarvis, founder of buzzmachine.com and a leading acolyte in the arena of citizen journalism. The interview was done in connection with Assignment Zero, a grand experiment underway to discover how effectively a “crowd” can report stories.

Vivian Martin is one of the editors for AZ, and maintains a blog about the experience. She has offered some interesting perspective to what Jarvis sees as important distinctions between CJ and crowdsourcing. To read Vivian’s blog click here. To read the Jarvis interview click here. I’ll be offering my thoughts about Jarvis’ positions soon.

Mea culpa

I have been corrected, and appropriately so. The Assignment Zero project mentioned in my previous post is not the creation of WIRED magazine. A comment that the post received from the project’s rightful creator, Jay Rosen, brought attention to my error. Instead, Assignment Zero is a joint project of WIRED and newassignment.net. My apologies to Jay and his other collaborators (Newsvine).

In a sense, however, this innocent but important oversight tells us something about the fragility of Citizen Journalism. How is it that an experienced writer, someone who considers himself a keen observer of words and ideas, could make such an error? The answer is both simple and illuminating: sloppiness.

Had I devoted the proper time and attention to reading about and better understanding Assignment Zero, it’s unlikely such a mistake would have happened. And, for critics of CJ, this example underscores one of its biggest weaknesses: an absence of fact-checking and editing in the open-source world of self-publishing. Indeed, were it not for my sense of fairness and responsibility, the error might well have gone uncorrected.

There is no question that “crowdsourcing” can be a powerful force – a potent demonstration of the dictum “the sum is greater than the parts” – that when forces work together they can create something of larger meaning or impact than might otherwise have been accomplished. And, I suspect this experiment will reveal that, like Wikipedia and its various cousins, a community of like-minded individuals is indeed capable of self-policing (most of the time.)

But what about the blogger, the self-annointed citizen journalist who contaminates his reportage of a news event with personal opinion or editorial commentary, and does so outside the boundaries of an experimental environment like Assignment Zero? Who will be there to fact-check? Can we presume that the online community of citizen watchdogs will always ferret out these kind of mistakes, intentional or accidental? I’m not at all confident that will always be the case.

For these reasons CJ must always be viewed somewhat suspiciously, no matter how significant the contributions of citizen oberservers who are passionate about events and circumstances too often ignored by the mainstream media.

More information about Assignment Zero is available here and here.