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.

Assignment Zero

WIRED magazine has undertaken a fascinating experiment in Citizen Journalism: How the Web makes it possible for the crowd to be the source of good ideas. But instead of one journalist reporting, WIRED has created a site where many people can work on the story, with editors as guides. It’s called Assignment Zero, your chance to participate in a high-profle CJ project. If interested, more information is available here.

A good resource

Are you interested in learning more about Citizen Journalism? The Poynter Institute has a great article about this growing phenomenon. Here is an excerpt:

But there’s plenty of confusion about citizen journalism. What exactly is it? Is this something that’s going to be essential to the future prosperity of news companies?

Full details are available here.

CJ parsed

Editors Weblog has an interesting breakdown on the various forms of Citizen Journalism. They include:

1. The citizen journalist who owns a digital camera or a camera phone and sends shootings to a news organisation during a major event (tsunami, London bombing…) or a local car accident
2. The citizen journalist who wants to cover its local or virtual community and produce targeted content
3. The citizen journalist who is a militant and campaigns for political reasons. How Eason Jordan was fired from CNN by infuriated bloggers in January 2005, was a good example of biased citizen journalism
4. The citizen journalist who is eager to participate to a « conversation » with professional journalists and bloggers. « News is just the beginning » says Jeff Jarvis and, in some cases, it is true.

No doubt something new has appeared in the last two years and that traditional newsrooms will have to deal with these new citizen journalists. But the idea that there is an essence of citizen journalism – as replacing the so-called traditional journalism – is dead. The full post is available here.

MSNBC & you

Here’s the latest example of mainstream media’s attempt to engage with citizen journalists.

Be part of the dialogue of the issues affecting everyone. Tell us YOUR story by being a Citizen Journalist.

MSNBC has set up an online network to report on the stories that touch our lives. We’ll publish them here on MSNBC.com.

Full details here.

Taking CJ to the woodshed

This is an excellent evaluation of Citizen Journalism and the presumed validity it enjoys. For CJ to take its proper place in the universe of news and information gathering, proponents must be willing to at least consider, if not accept well-reasoned criticism of this emerging form of reportage. In time, those who believe in CJ will be well-served by constructive criticism. I encourage all to spend some time with this piece: English Literature: AMATEUR HOUR——Journalism without journalists.

Excerpt: Is the Internet a mere safety valve, a salon des refusés, or does it actually produce original information beyond the realm of opinion and comment? It ought to raise suspicion that we so often hear the same menu of examples in support of its achievements: bloggers took down the 2004 “60 Minutes” report on President Bush’s National Guard service and, with it, Dan Rather’s career; bloggers put Trent Lott’s remarks in apparent praise of the Jim Crow era front and center, and thereby deposed him as Senate majority leader.The best original Internet journalism happens more often by accident, when smart and curious people with access to means of communication are at the scene of a sudden disaster. Any time that big news happens unexpectedly, or in remote and dangerous places, there is more raw information available right away on the Internet than through established news organizations. The most memorable photographs of the London terrorist bombing last summer were taken by subway riders using cell phones, not by news photographers, who didn’t have time to get there. There were more ordinary people than paid reporters posting information when the tsunami first hit South Asia, in 2004, when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, in 2005, and when Israeli bombs hit Beirut this summer. I am in an especially good position to appreciate the benefits of citizen journalism at such moments, because it helped save my father and stepmother’s lives when they were stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: the citizen portions of the Web sites of local news organizations were, for a crucial day or two, one of the best places to get information about how to drive out of the city. But, over time, the best information about why the hurricane destroyed so much of the city came from reporters, not citizens.

A bigger stage for Citizen Journalism

The movement continues to pick up momentum with the announcement by CNN of a new citizen journalism initiative.  What’s interesting about the announcement is the recognition that constantly improved technology is making it easier for “regular people” to create high quality photography and video.  It remains to be seen how long CNN will stick by it’s decision to open the transom to citizen-submitted material.

CNN expands citizen journalism with I-Report initiative

Excerpt:  In recognition of the power user-generated material holds to tell the world about news from the personal perspective, CNN has created “I-Report,”

As others see it

Apparently I’m not the only one who believes that the rush to Citizen Journalism has thinned considerably (see previous post). 

Networks Cool on Viewer News Video – 7/10/2006 – Broadcasting & Cable – CA6350836

Excerpt: But a year later, none of the major TV news organizations have included citizen journalism as a major part of their newscasts. The news networks’ hesitancy to embrace content from viewers on-air has less to do with concern about video authenticity than with a desire to keep a certain level of quality and control.

Losing steam?

Time now for a rhetorical question: Has citizen journalism begun to lose steam? My sense from general Web reading is that the hoopla surrounding this phenomenon has died down somewhat. This is probably all the better, and quite normal. Typically there is a settling out of “the next new thing”, allowing for the not-so-committed to move on to the next flavor of the day. And, the mainstream media’s hysteria about CJ also appears to have tampered a bit.

Thus, I’m of the opinion that CJ is just where it needs to be at this stage. Those acolytes who are deeply committed will continue to expand the CJ universe and in so doing will have cleansed the movement of its fraudsters and quick-hit artists. And, when the next major spot news event occurs on the national stage, look for CJs to lead the way with cam phones and blogs at the ready.