|
It used to be easy to define what a journalist was. They had a degree in English or Journalism, usually owned a camera and were employed full time by a news outlet, TV or radio station or newspaper. Their days were spent conducting interviews, researching the next big story and writing articles. However, in recent years the line between these 'professional' journalists and the public has become blurred. There is a growing trend for amateur journalism that often bypasses the established media sources. The upshot is that virtually anyone can be a journalist. After all, if you are present when a story breaks, or you yourself are part of the news story, why wait for a 'real' journalist to interview you as an eyewitness? You can use the camera on your phone and tell the story yourself and post it on your own blog or on social media.
It is not only on sites like Facebook and Twitter that amateur journalism is on the rise. There are now open publishing sites, such as the Independent Media Center or 'Indymedia', which aim to bring a 'grassroots dimension' into the news arena. Ohmynews, one of South Korea's most influential online sources for the latest in current affairs, has 2 million readers every day and a nationwide army of 26,000 'citizen' journalists. More and more often these citizen journalists and open sites are getting the scoop on major stories. The first mention of the problems facing the doomed space shuttle Columbia appeared on an online discussion forum 11 minutes before the Associated Press broke the news. What is more, there has been a fundamental change in how we interact with the news. Nowadays, with the growth in online versions of newspapers, the public can easily comment, point out errors, and share alternative viewpoints. These opportunities are particularly vital if you find yourself the subject of a news story - whether for positive or negative reasons. If the story involves you, you can provide vital context and supplementary information which can change readers' views on your story.
When this trend for participatory media was in its infancy, there was plenty of mistrust of amateur 'journalists' who lacked the credentials of journalists working in established media outlets. If a story didn't come from well-known news organisations like CNN or The Times, it wasn't taken seriously. Now that perception is changing. Trust in alternative media sources is growing. In fact, mainstream media now regularly recruit members of their own staff from the ranks of amateur news bloggers. Simultaneously, there has been a general shift away from a 'broadcast model', in which the few broadcast to the many, towards a more inclusive model in which the audience can play an active role. The traditional 'filter then publish' news model has been replaced by 'publish then filter', with millions of keen amateurs involved at all stages of the process.
So, how have the media establishment reacted to this change? Initially, it was seen as a challenge to their hegemony. They had always been the gatekeepers: those who decided what was news and how that news should be presented. Participatory journalism represents the democratisation of the media: and therefore a threat to this. Media futurists predict that by 2021, 50% of news will be produced by citizen Journalists, so traditional media have had little choice but to embrace the trend or be left behind. Many already have, by adding features that invite participation, such as comments sections and links to social media.
There are many potential benefits to 'We media', as participatory journalism is sometimes called. It can help forge stronger relationships between the media and local communities, since people feel their views are represented, creating a sense of trust and shared responsibility. Members of the public who participate in creating the news gain memorable experiences and build their reputation in a given community. 'We media' can also give a voice to those who haven't had one due to educational, economic, social or cultural barriers. It is a liberating phenomenon with the potential to reduce inequality in society.
Of course, like anything else, participatory journalism has its critics and in particular there are those who claim that news reporting on social media is used to manipulate people and even spread misinformation or 'fake news'. Whilst this is no doubt true in some cases, it is a sweeping generalisation. For example, during the 2011 London riots, it was widely reported on mainstream media that the rioters and looters used social media to spread news about what was happening and to incite others towards violence and protest. However, what is interesting is that the event has now been studied in detail and it has been revealed that this was not the case. In actual fact, citizen journalists played a positive role as the situation unfurled. They were the first to alert the authorities to early incidents of rioting taking place, and helped the police identify offenders by photographing them in the act and sharing the photos on social media. Without ordinary Londoners responding to news in this way, many of the perpetrators would most likely have escaped justice.
The evidence so far is that participatory journalism is here to stay and set to develop in ways as yet unimagined. The implication for every user of media is that we need to be ever more open to the possibility of false information. The 'publish then filter' model necessitates all readers and viewers honing their critical faculties and verifying reports by independent means before accepting and sharing them. This will be a positive trend if it develops the thinking skills of the population as a whole. An educated citizenry who do not believe what they read without question is surely an asset to any society.
|
