Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Katrine Holm Sorensen

The debate about citizen
journalism is a discussion of technological Darwinism: those who evolve, survive. Although this is a rather simplistic assumption, I believe in many ways the citizen journalism movement could only have become successful if the public reacted to something that was missing in the traditional discourse.

I agree with Ariana Huffington when she says that consumers have gone "from couch potato to self-expression.", and I think the many new forums for dialogue should be acknowledged as an alternative to the sender-reciever model. Especially in a political era of spin and PR-management that has jaded the voters, online media and journalism could become an effective tool to engage in genuine dialogue between the governing and the governed. Furthermore, with the rise of citizen journalists, the number of voices to engage in debate, scrutiny and critisism has multiplied radically giving a more diverse and realistic image of society. Perhaps one could take this line of thought a step further and say online media offer us a chance to reconnect with democracy?

Ariana Huffington is very realistic in her argument that traditional, conservative media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch may have lost touch with the needs and demands of the modern consumer. If 80 percent of the consumers want free news, wouldn't it be a business suicide to create an online newspaper that demands payment?

I do, however, appreciate the panic of the journalists and print newspapers: how will we as a society retain serious, critical voices if we will not pay for their services? Naturally, there will be a place for respected institutions such as New York Times in the online future, but they will only flourish under the management of innovative online editiors.

Trust is a major concern for the future of journalism because of the dwindling sources of objective, reliable information. Although citizen journalism creates a more fair, democratic discourse, it is generally a more subjective debate with information that has questionable origins. A point well made by my esteemed colleague Jayme Hagen is that the consumers have to take the time to critically sift through all the available as opposed to just read one or two major newspapers. In a sense we all have to become journalists to rely on citizen journalism: fact checking and a critical approach to opinions will become crucial abilities to pilot though the chaotic cacophony of citizen journalism.

Note: image originates from Swift Economics.

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Aden Cruz

Change is inevitable, and it often is not easy, especially when there is a significant shift of power. As knowledge is power, Journalists, in the past, had the power and privilege of being gatekeepers in control of informing the masses.

Now that the time has come, that the ability to share knowledge and inform the masses is accessibly by all, it is not surprising that there is resistance and that adjustment will take time. However, progress is being made; as legacy journalism begins utilize the benefits of social media participation.

Many traditional news organizations now refer to blogs and other social media sites such as twitter and facebook in their reports and broadcasts, acknowledging their obvious value and the public’s desire to participate rather than be passive consumers of news.

Another example of how new media is gaining it’s place in the world of journalism is the way social media is being welcomed and utilized in this year’s Winter Olympics.

CBC’s Jennifer Hollett reported Monday on Connect with Mark Kelley that two “social media centers” are going to be set up during the 2010 Winter Olympics for “non-accredited journalists”.

Hollett reported, “Basically any one who wants to go to the games and report, but does not have an official pass can just go down, log on to a lap top at one of these centers and share their experience.”

Though the prospect of the journalist next door having such an opportunity is exciting, bloggers should be careful about what they tweet and blog.

“One of the bloggers was charged after the Beijing Olympics for something that he posted,” Hollett said.

It was also mentioned that there is confusion among Athletes as to who can and cannot tweet. However, “The International Olympic Committee actually has official blogging guidelines,” Hollett pointed out. “It’s confusing for the athletes as well as for spectators because it is a new process.”

There is also an article featured by The Vancouver Sun, that urges readers to submit their “…most convincing video pitch to Samsung’s online Mobile Explorers contest.” Winners are expected to “…demonstrate social media dexterity in building excitement over Canada’s hosting of the Games.” Here we see the corporate world getting involved in new media, another issue that is to be expected and anticipated.

New media’s momentum is gaining quickly; the challenge is to cope, adapt, and manage at the same rate.





NOTE: Image from http://www.politics280.com/

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Megan Perras

Personally, I approach the new trends in journalism with a Tao-istic mind-frame: appreciate, learn from and work with anything that happens in life, or in this circumstance; the internet. The new technological trends of journalism that are so called “intruding” into the industry are simply a by-product of our changing world. Change in the industry is going to occur whether we like or accept it or not, so why not simply let it morph into whatever it is to become. The nature of technology is progress, and nature is something that many try to fight, but they never seem to get their proverbial sword out of its sheath before they find themselves defeated. Taoists are happy because they take what comes as not good or bad, but just as is. These new emerging untrained journalist bloggers may be the bane of our existence as professionals, but the fact is that they are- and we cannot change that, much like we cannot change the tides or whatever direction the wind tries to blow in. The only source of professional happiness for us in this career is to work in harmony with the new “journalism” that emerges and attempt to find our own niche in the technological world. If one simply learns to embrace the change, you may find that we may fit in a lot better than we originally thought. Pessimistic as though we may be about the changes, it may become a source of happiness in our acceptance of it.

The Taoist theory of the “un-carved block” may aid in explanation: an un-carved block is representation of “things in their natural state”. These things are said to represent the beauty in original function; a tree gives oxygen, water gives reflection. Much like this, writers give words, journalists; news. Therefore, a blogger in their natural state may very well be a journalist. Albeit, without the same regulations, pay, or ethics, in the natural state the definition still applies. Those that read the news will still read the news. The only exception is that they will have to pay for the ethics, accuracy and trustworthiness now. That in itself is a niche carved for professional journalists.

The emergence of citizen journalists is akin to “open mic night” at the bar. Everyone wants a shot in the limelight. There is no blame for this, who doesn’t want to be heard? I believe that the more opinions and points of view, the better aligned we all will be with the information. I hold firm in the belief that one can learn just as much from a really bad opinion, article, etc. as they can a good one. The skill that one must congratulate themselves on obtaining is recognizing the good from the bad. Therefore, the more bloggers giving information the better- the public will obtain more weaponry in their arsenal of “crap detection.” (Much as is explained in this recently explored website: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/rheingold/detail?entry_id=42805 )

Concerning the opinion of Rupert Murdoch where he with much virility states that people are “feeding” off the hard work that journalists are doing (http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/12/arianna_calls_r.php) , I have but one thing to say; which my mother used to say to me when my sister would wear my clothes, or do her hair the same way I did, “Imitation is the highest form of flattery.” So much thanks in advance to all of those citizen bloggers of the future who will share the information I have obtained with the world. The basic premise of my future career is to deliver information and truths to the public, and therefore you have done me a favour; increased my readership. Only those who are narcissistic and vain would have any problem with someone distributing public information to the public, because it is not under their pen name- or because they don’t receive money for it. Perhaps Murdoch should examine his motivation.

(Just to be fair, I did agree with much of his speech... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/rupert-murdoch-newspapers-will-change-not-die-470581.html )

There is no calamity greater than lavish desires.There is no greater guilt than discontentment.And there is no greater disaster than greed.
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzuChinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)

I believe that if someone is writing for the enjoyment of others, it is always a worthy cause. The better the writer or the better crafted a story is, the more readers they should receive. I feel as if some journalists are threatened by citizen bloggers because perhaps the competition pool has widened- they will find themselves lacking in heart, or the better story. One must simply learn to accept what is to come and look at the positive side of it. Maybe more competition is just an opportunity to hone your skills, and rise above as the true writer, storyteller, or journalist. Ethics may come to play a much larger role to trained journalists. Stories and sources found must be unshakable to maintain the trust that is now so easily obtained from the public. Trust seems to be what will be selling in the future, and what a wonderful industry value it would be to operate under. Public trust seems much more worthy to me than to be the winner of public attention. I also feel as if trust in the long run will be more lucrative. When citizen journalists start getting the facts wrong, the public will naturally run home to the trustworthy news-stations, much like children to their parents.

I feel as if this topic is being examined to death, yet nothing is progressing any differently as it would naturally. Action is not being taken. The nature of things is change, technology: progression. I feel as if we should take the Taoist approach when considering this and just let it happen, and accept it as something different, perhaps difficult and new, but with great optimism. Citizen journalists are not good, they’re not bad- they just are.

(For some entertaining reading on Taoism, if you are having trouble coping with these citizen journalists I suggest reading The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff)
“Through working in harmony with life's circumstances, Taoist understanding changes what others may perceive as negative into something positive.”
Benjamin Hoff Source: The Tao of Pooh

Image From: http://www.taoistic.com/images/tao.gif

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Maxwell Rausch

Journalists and the Public

We all know how complicated our jobs are becoming as journalists…the technical demands upon us have been well documented and discussed. But beyond the technical side of things, there is also the increasing irony of our situation. For so long, the public has turned to us to gather, clarify, and distribute information to them. Now that they’re beginning doing it for themselves, we find ourselves competing against the same people we aim to serve. Not surprisingly, our strange relationship with the public has resulted in some tension, to say the least. David Simon has said citizen journalists are little more than “amateurs, pursuing the task without compensation, training or, for that matter, sufficient standing to make public officials even care whom it is they are lying to.” Not all professionals hate the idea, mind you: Arianna Huffington praises it as an extension of democracy, since citizens have “[shifted] their focus from passive observation to active participation.”

The Accountability Problem

Douglas McGill, alumnus of the New York Times and proponent of citizen journalism, wrote that “a common goal of citizen journalists is to recapture journalism as a truly democratic practice that is thoroughly rooted in- and thus directly serves –the real lives and interests of citizens.” In a way, that claim is indisputable: to legally forbid citizens from sharing information with one another would be plainly undemocratic. Moreover, if the public feels agents of the “mainstream media” such as ourselves are not providing the complete and balanced story, then we should be held accountable by an alternative that will. Unfortunately, there’s no incentive for a citizen journalist to fill that role. McGill defines citizen journalism as still adhering to the facts of a story, but “also offering views, ideas, and perspectives other than its own.” Objectivity is a long-standing value of journalism, but if the corporate media can’t be trusted to uphold it, then citizen journalists certainly can’t be, either. While we have to acknowledge that journalists can be at the whim of their editors and the owners of the medium, we also need to be aware that no one holds the citizen journalist accountable to the objective facts, either.



A Potential Solution?

A recent blog post on idiomag.com praised Wikipedia as the “ultimate citizen journalism news source.” Putting aside all visceral reactions for a moment, it’s actually not hard to see where that conclusion came from. This particular blogger was quick to point out that it aims for the same ideals as any citizen journalist: it relies on mass participation, is constantly updated in near real-time, and allows for corrections and revisions in the course of those updates. But if Wikipedia really is the epitome of the citizen journalist movement, then the movement doesn’t have much potential, since Wikipedia still doesn’t offer a solution to the accountability problem. It doesn’t take a professional journalist to realize that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to be fair and balanced. For a simple case study, look at the site's own citizen journalism article. The overview section concludes by stating that “Wikipedia itself is the largest and most successful citizen journalism project.” In this instance, the bias is transparent and relatively harmless, but nevertheless demonstrates how the theory of peer editing and updating can easily fall through in practice.

Who Should We Trust?

The question of whether or not citizen journalists should be given the reign they have has long since passed, since we as professionals do not have any extraordinary powers in our own positions. Although we may have formal training, organizations like the Institute of Citizen Journalism offer support for citizens who wish to develop their skills as reporters without the involvement of post-secondary institutions. But if our skills do not exceed our citizen counterparts, we are bound, at least theoretically, to an ethical code of accuracy fairness, and objectivity. On the other hand, citizen journalists are governed only by their readers and their peers, whose influence has been shown to be typically sporadic. Seeing as how our own stories are often modified to suit the feelings of our editors, we can hardly see ourselves as morally superior, it seems. Calling citizen journalism a problem in itself is unfair; its rise has merely drawn attention to shortcomings in the practice of journalism as a whole.

Eric Erickson can be found here.

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism - Devon Bowie

The digital revolution, with its increased connectivity and decentralization of information access, has changed the face of journalism. What was once the realm of Cronkites or Thompsons now belongs to bloggers. But who are these bloggers? They are anyone with a computer and the desire to blog. This shift from traditional journalism to citizen journalism is not without merit, but it also does not come without its problems. For instance, I am blogging right now. There are no editors or fact checkers to keep me from inaccuracy or bias. I could write anything I wanted, such as "Obama is black-Hitler" and if I was convincing or my readers were gullible, they would believe it. Therein lies the main problem with citizen journalism.

But, as I said, it is not without merit. The decentralized aspect can be very effective in an oppressive regime. In a situation in which regular reporters would not be allowed to report, the citizen journalist can anonymously tell the story on the internet. Such a thing happened in Iran last year, when Twitter helped the Iranian protesters organize and tell their story. Problems in objectivity can supposedly be solved by such sites as Digg, in which users vote up or vote down other people's posts, effectively relying on the wisdom of the crowd.

But the crowd is not so wise. Hitler was elected by a majority, after all, and most Americans voted George Bush in. Twice. It's part of a trend that espouses democratic principles in all things, given democracy's success in the 19th and 20th centuries. As Churchill said, however, “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. It assumes that because a majority of people believe something, it must be right. The will of the majority often has no grounding in truth or right. Democracy is indeed the best, or rather least bad system of government, but it has no place in journalism.

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Shannon Findlay

In the past, the title of "journalist" gave those who bore it an air of importance. This description, held only by a select few, gave them the power to influence and effect many audiences. However, in the age of the online world, the prestige of bringing the news has shifted from the once select few, to now being anyone with computer access.

Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, spoke about this movement of citizen journalism saying it enables consumers to "shift their focus from passive observation to active participation."

Anyone can now be a provider of information. Instead of waiting for news outlets to tell you what justifies news, citizens can decide for themselves and make known what they believe to be newsworthy.

In the case of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in China, the government had the power to censor or ban what went into established media like the newspapers. In a case like this, it is the citizen journalism that becomes one of the more informative outlets to what is really happening.

Everyone has a story to tell; some more impacting than others. Through new media, these stories are able to reach a market where people can decide for themselves whether they want to hear it, or ignore it.The future isn't heading towards citizen journalism, it's already there and growing more to vast each day. The facts cannot be ignored that the world is changing and adapting to life online. Many may criticize the efforts of bloggers, but it's hard to ignore the impact citizen journalist has had already.

*image from-http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/to_blog_or_not_to_blog.jpg

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Rob Smethurst

If it's one thing that technology has done through out all of history it has been to make information more available to those who seek it. So it should come as no surprise that just as the printing press changed the world, so to does the internet. The application of the internet in the world of journalism, has opened a Pandora's box, of blogging and citizen journalists, that some would like to see closed, but now that is it opened it is doubtful that slamming the lid shut is possible. Instead of trying to change the past in hopes that the future remains the same, journalists should be trying to find ways to incorporate the new internet applications into their job.

The big concern right now is for quality. people fear for a loss of quality in composition, in accuracy and in ethics. A valid concern, since there is not shortage of blogs out there right now that are so full of errors it could induce a seizure. On the other hand, they can provide information that would that many would never have access to. A first person point of view on an unfolding event.


The biggest example of that is perhaps the events of 9/11, when the world trade center's towers fell. Think of how many pictures and videos there were taken with peoples cell phones, how many of those lead to sources for the professional reporters that when to cover the story. That extra information gave the journalists more information to work with and create even more dynamic stories, really showing the horror of the event.


Of course the quality won't be the same in the blogs and citizen journal reports as it would be in a news paper, and that is a good thing. The professional journalist of today can research out the 'poorer quality' blogs and work with the writers to create a perfectly composed story. This
method would do two things for the news industry: it would encourage public interest in the news, and increase the credibility of both the citizen journalist and the professional journalist; it would also increase the accuracy and the depth of the stories produced, highlighting the angles that matter to the public.


In this model, the citizen journalist would not be undercutting the industry, but instead be helping the workings of a news agency. We see this happening already to some degree. The Edmonton Journal's entertainment section has a Review by You column, and Global TV is paying $100 to the best citizen weather photographer, every week. Getting the public involved in the news reporting process is only one step toward saving the journalism industry, but it is an important one as people today want interactive media, and if they can interact with the news agencies they will have a more vested interest in them.




Pictures used:
Pic 1
Pic 2

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Kris Hoyt

With the rise of the internet, several people have attempted to spread the news themselves. This "citizen journalism" has led to a fair amount of controversy from several sources, including professional journalists. There are some people who believe that the citizen journalists are a boon to society, while others believe that the journalism should belong to professional journalists. In my opinion, this is not an easy distinction to make.

On the one hand, there are plenty of talented people out there who know how to get the story and can turn it into something well written. Rupert Murdoch said that people will pay for their news if the news is still well-written. However, as stated previously, there are people who can provide the well-written news for free. When that becomes the case, which one is more likely to be accepted by the people: the news they have to pay for, or the news that comes for free?

However, one can not ignore the need for professional journalism either. While there are some very good citizen journalists out there, at the same time, there are probably many journalists who do not realize what professionalism entails. As a result, they make simple mistakes or do not make an attempt to tell the full story, either unknowingly or knowingly. This potential for bias is another problem with citizen journalism. Professional journalism also has the same potential, but, hopefully, before any article is published either in print or online, it will be subjected to an editor who will find any bias and have it taken out.

I would also like to refute Ariana Huffington's comment. It appeared to me that she was accusing the professional journalism industry of turning its back on new media. However, many professional newspapers do use the internet and are slowly learning to use it in a more professional manner. Already, the active participation she talks about is used by most of these sources, by allowing comments to let readers discuss and debate the article, and pointing out extra sources allows the readers to get more research. I think that as the professional world gets more adept at online reporting, the professional journalism world will continue to outshine those citizen journalists.

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Jayme Hagen

While blogging and citizen journalism are not entirely without merit, one does have to question whether these sources are a legitimate form of news. They do not have editors or fact-checkers so it is crucial that consumers do not blindly believe the stories they write as hard facts. Often times these bloggers are anonymous and do not have to worry about their reputations. To generalize, when you aren't being paid to do a job, you aren't going to do as good a job at it, unless it truly is your passion, so these sources are generally of a lesser calibre. FTC news asks, "are newspapers like typewriters (i.e. dead) or bicycles (i.e. adaptable and vibrant)?" This is something that only time will tell, will the newspapers evolve with the changing of access to information, or will they fade into obscurity?

That being said, the Internet has allowed every person to have a voice on these matters. How they choose to use this voice is another matter. Before the Internet people relied mostly on local television networks and papers, now it is possible to read headlines from newspapers in Iran, you are able to read blogs from people all over the world. The quality may be inferior on many of the sources, but the sheer abundance allows readers to sift through and find accurate information, if they take the time to do so.

Ultimately, it is the consumer's responsibility to establish whether or not there is enough hard evidence in a story to believe it. This is nothing new, in order for people to establish whether what the papers were telling them was actually true, there has always been a need for skepticism. Nazi Germany had control of the presses, but the people who wanted the hard facts had to rely on underground forms of communication, if their had been as great of access to information (i.e. the Internet) back then, it would not have been as easy to keep everyone in the dark as to what is going on. At the end of the day, fact-checking has always been in the hands of the consumers, just because it comes from a newspaper and not a blogger does not mean we should blindly follow it.

Image courtesy of Kerussocharis.

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Kevin Penny

Over the years, media has become a lot more active than previously before. Where people would once passively watch the news, they now have the ability to report it themselves. Citizen journalists have caused an explosion in the amount of information being transferred, causing a shift in the way people can receive information. Although it is only in its early stages, citizen journalism is swiftly becoming the new norm for information gathering and reporting the news.

With websites like Youtube and DemocracyNow, news has never been more easily accessible.

As the shift in information gathering has occured, companies such as Google have taken no time in capturing the web-based market. With sites like Youtube, Google Books, Google Reader, and many other applications, Google has become the baron of information gathering; even its search engine has been redesigned (almost like an AI) in order to choose the best information for its users. If technology keeps advancing at its current rate, in a not too distant future the HAL 9000 will most likely control all of our daily activities.

Many people will say that the rise of the Internet technologies will destabilize the traditional form of journalism, but this is simply not the case. Where people once had no say in how their information was ranked in importance, now they have the ability to choose whatever site they please to receive their information. It is with the many blogs and social networking softwares that people are able to pick and choose their information accordingly, instead of being fed the news by their TVs and radios. Citizen journalism is not the death of the traditional 'Fourth Estate' form of media; instead, it is a rebirth of the way people communicate news in a global community.

K. Penny

Picture obtained from Google Images

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Steven Wagers

Citizen journalism doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it is understandable that often times they aren't taken seriously. People seem to just expect that once they have started their own blog, they automatically gain credibility which isn't always the case. Citizen journalists have to earn their credibility (and rightfully so) by doing the same things that journalists themselves do.

Journalists seem to have their credibility just given to them when they enter into a known publication, and rightfully so in my opinion. If a well known publication trusts the reporter and you trust the publication, then it makes sense that you would trust the journalist as well. Citizen Journalists don't have that same sort of luxury. When they write something people often look at it with a bit more scepticism because, well let's face it, anybody can start up a blog about anything.

That's not to say that citizen journalists can't gain the trust of readers. Certainly they can, but it takes more time. They have to do both the jobs of the journalist and the editor, and for that reason alone, a good citizen journalist should be given credit for their work. On "The Best of Twitter: FTC Workshop" Rupert Murdoch brings up the point that sometimes citizen journalists just take the work that professional journalists have done and claim it as their own, and that is a major hurdle facing good citizen journalists.

Citizen journalists have to overcome the perception given to them because of some of their unworthy brethren. The citizen journalists who takes stories from professional journalists who work on them over a long period of time are what is holding the rest of the citizen journalists back from being a solid source for news, but good citizen journalists can overcome the negative outlook that lots of people have on them.

The truth is that with the new technologies and different ways of communicating citizen journalists are going to play a major role in the way that we hear news. People think that citizen journalism will eventually make professional journalism obsolete, but the way I see it, if citizen journalists are the only source of news, won't they eventually want to get paid for it? And if they are getting paid wouldn't that mean they are doing it as a profession? And if they are doing it as a profession, wouldn't that make them professional journalists?

Image from: http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/101608/im-a-journalist.gif

Citizen Journalism and The Future of Journalism, Pamela Di Pinto

Citizen journalism, also known as participatory journalism, is a form of journalism in which users are actively involved in the creation of journalistic content. As demonstrated in "Best of Twitter: FTC Workshop Discusses Future of Journalism" by Jessica Clark, citizen journalism is a subject of much debate. What constitutes citizen journalism? How should it be used? Should it even be used at all? According to Arianna Huffington, citizen journalism "...has enabled millions of consumers to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation -- from couch potato to self-expression." On this point, I completely agree with Huffington. Citizen journalism allows people to develop their own voice in the news world, in this granting them the ability to highlight the issues they see fit as well. Instead of having the media represent the public as a collective whole, citizen journalism is a way for individuals to be recognized as, well, individuals. Ultimately, it is a way for people to represent themselves in the media, as opposed to having an outside party -- professional, working journalists -- do it for them.

However, I feel there are some drawbacks to citizen journalism. At the FTC workshop, Ruport Murdoch outlined these issues stating, "Some (citizen journalists) rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive, and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories, all under the tattered veil of 'fair use'...To be impolite, it's theft." This is the main issue I have with citizen journalism: if an individual is going to commit to the role of 'citizen journalist,' they need to commit all the way. This means doing the 'dirty work' that reporting entails too, like researching the issue, attributing sources, and remaining fair, accurate and balanced while writing. Anything otherwise does not constitute true journalism, and should not be classified as such.

Based on this, "The contributions of citizen journalists, bloggers, and others who aren't paid to cover the news are constantly mocked and derided by the critics of new media..."as Huffington describes, but to a greater extent than they deserve in my opinion. I think Terra makes a good point in her blog post on citizen journalism when she says, "The industry is evolving and the contributions from citizen journalists and bloggers shouldn't be viewed in a dim light. Instead, journalists should embrace sites that still share the news, but do so in a different way." My only addition to this comment would be to monitor how sites focused on citizen journalism operate. When executed properly, I believe that citizen journalism can function just as effectively as any professional form of journalism, and prove just as informative to news-goers. For example, open-source journalism, as seen on sites like newassignment.net, have professional journalists begin a story while citizens are brought in at different levels of the process. Professional editors also monitor content supplied by citizen journalists on these sites.

In regards to Murdoch's comment about charging people for online news, I can see how this notion would make sense from a business perspective, though I don't think the majority of people will actually pay up, at least not when it is first introduced anyways. Huffington even states that a recent study conducted in the U.S. found that 80 per cent of online news-goers wouldn't read online news or magazines if they were not free. I think the 'free' aspect behind online news is one of the main reasons why it has become so popular. It's fast, it's convenient, and anyone with an Internet connection can access it. By putting a price tag on it, audiences are suddenly limited. Despite this, I believe charging consumers for online news will be implemented eventually, and that, in time, it will become normal to have to pay for such services.

Overall, citizen journalism is made up of both pros and cons. It gives citizens their own voice in the news world; however, not everything on the web classified as citizen journalism should be classified as citizen journalism. It is still a form of journalism, meaning that news produced from this medium needs to abide by basic journalistic principles. And the looming idea of paying for online news seems to be approaching faster than ever. In the end, this is where journalism is ultimately heading. I say, why fight it -- embrace it!

Note: Image from: http://fvdb.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/billboard.jpg

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Terra Poole

Critics are spending too much time fearing the collapse of journalism. The industry is evolving and the contributions from citizen journalists and bloggers shouldn't be viewed in a dim light. Instead, journalists should embrace sites that still share the news, but do so in a different way. If "technology has enabled millions of consumers to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation," as Arianna Huffington comments, then it is a part of distributing people's right to free speech. This is the direction the digital era is heading towards and it shouldn't be limiting.

As people are spending more time using online outlets as their news sources, journalists have to adapt accordingly. The definition of Journalism 2.0 implies how journalists who don't become digitally literate will be at a disadvantage compared to those who embrace the changing climate. Social networking sites like twitter, facebook and blogs are not going to disappear and with that said, journalists should learn how to work with these facets.

The idea of charging people for the use of online news articles should remain an idea. If reputable news sources intend on maintaining the support of their followers then they have to be easily accessible to public. If the public is forced to pay for their news, then it will likely search elsewhere for its news. Charging for online news will rapidly narrow the public into the direction the industry would like to avoid: blogs and other citizen journalism outlets.

Bloggers should understand, like Rupert Murdoch mentions, that rewriting news stories without attribution is unfair and unethical. Bloggers shouldn't be taking what journalists have spent time to prepare and claim it as their own. Social networking sites do not overshadow what reputable sites have to offer. Online news sites have the advantage of credible reputations on their sides whereas blogs have been ridiculed for being shaped by opinions rather than facts.

Note: Photo from a blog of her own

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Ricki Cundliffe

When it comes to "bloggers" and others who cover the news without receiving payment, I think that is 100% a personal choice. I don't understand any reason for mockery or ridicule directed towards these select people from critics, because these "bloggers" are clearly engaging in activities that they find enjoyable, interesting, and/or therapeutic. One of the best things about the Internet is being able to interact with people all around the world from the comfort of your own home; it is very beneficial to all to be able to contribute valuable knowledge to society via the Internet. Arianna Huffington states, "the critics of new media [who] clearly don't understand that technology has enabled millions of consumers to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation." In my opinion, Huffington has hit the nail on the head. With that being said, I think any sort of mockery by critics in this sense is unnecessary and inappropriate, because in essence, it does not affect these critics as individuals one bit.

"Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks, or even months in their stories, all under the tattered veil of 'fair use,' " Rupert Murdoch said. "These people are not investing in journalism. They are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others...To be impolite, it's theft." In this case, I definitely agree with Murdoch. There is a big difference between contributing to the World Wide Web in comparison to cluttering it up with unnecessary repetition. If you really enjoy something that has been published by a fellow "blogger," there is absolutely nothing wrong with re-posting the piece while adding your own thoughts and ideas, AS LONG AS YOUR ATTRIBUTE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE! Search Engines are very advanced, and a simple background check will easily prove who the original composer was; it's doesn't help anyone to plagiarize, and it is especially offensive to those who initially posted their own views.

Overall, I understand there is a possibility of charging people to view the news online. It is more convenient to access than newspaper are, and there has always been a price on purchasing those. "In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites...The critics say people won't pay," Murdoch said. "I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don't get something for nothing." I, too, share the belief that people are willing to pay for something convenient, beneficial, and original. On the other hand, I do not agree with putting a price tag on blog posting and similar sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). "Bloggers" should be able to take advantage of expressing themselves and their ideas online without having to cover costs. If these sites began charging their contributors, I believe the usage will decline dramatically, and the entire site will go to waste.



Note: Image from: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&q=computer+cartoon&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Jesse Snyder

Of all the recent advancements made in journalism, the ability for readers to instantly verify information is one of the most substantial. Unlike the traditional form of journalism where readers were expected to accept facts at face value, they are now able to locate information via the internet and instantly verify data. In doing this, readers are able to create a more two-way medium, where people are essentially taking part in journalism themselves. The website World Government Data allows England's public to instantly download government data in any realm of the news. Crime rates, environmental information and sports statistics are all available on a single website. This in a sense creates more accurate journalism that is essentially proofread not only by an editor, but potentially by the entire public. People are then more qualified to comment on stories and give feedback, causing a more conversational style of journalism to emerge.

This conversational style of journalism is integral for bloggers, who otherwise have no editors, to back check and verify information. Without the ability for people to converse, bloggers are using their posts only as places to vent and give their opinion. In order for citizen journalists to be credible news sources, there must be verification from the public. Without open discussions occurring blogs become untrustworthy. But can the public actually be trusted to verify data? The Internet doesn't supply bloggers with angry bosses to break their knees if they step out of line, so how does one know which sites are written objectively?

It can also be noted that most popular bloggers earn credible reputations before they actually begin getting heavy traffic to their site. Most blogs aren't viewed by more than a handful of people, and don't display any links or data pertaining to the story. Regardless, blogs have been growing rapidly. This growth seems to make citizen journalists believe they are the modern and righteous journalists of today, attracting spite and hatred from the traditionalists who feel they are the way, the truth, and the light. It is an ongoing and treacherous battle; although, soon enough the relentlessness of technology will give everyone the ability to be journalists. With that said, there are times when citizen journalists are just as apt as paid journalists. Things like town hall meetings and novice hockey games are surely right up the alley of a retired high school teacher with a Nikon Coolpix camera.

The future likely holds a place for both citizen journalists and professional journalists, as there will always be certain stories that are impossible for bloggers to cover, and others that are just as easily covered by average citizens. It is important for citizen journalists to display the same objective and discussion-based reporting as the major media outlets in order to convey the news honestly. In the end, only someone with a known background will be looked toward for, say, insight on the war in Afghanistan or global politics.

Note: Image from Google Images.

Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Jennifer Carbert

The Internet has caused the world to blur the lines between citizen journalists and working journalists. In this blog for clarity purposes we will call the traditional newspaper or broadcasting reporter a working reporter, and a citizen who takes interest in world events and posts blogs about subjects online a citizen journalist.

Arianna Huffington, in a conference in Washington DC said,

"The contributions of citizen journalists, bloggers, and others who aren't paid to cover the news are constantly mocked and derided by the critics of new media who clearly don't understand that technology has enabled millions of consumers to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation -- from couch potato to self-expression."

Some Journalists feel threatened by citizen journalist. They feel as though citizens are taking over the news business and not accurately reporting the news. Working Journalists believe all citizen journalism is riddled with personal opinion and bias and readers will not be able to discern the difference between editorials parading as news, and well researched news articles. This may be true, some readers may not be able to tell the difference between solid research and opinion laced articles, but many people know the difference and feel more included in the news process when they can contribute.

Huffignton was explaining that technology has changed so therefore the news business must change to keep up. Sites such as AllVoices.com creatively allow readers to interact with the news and write stories, but they also include articles from trusted, long-established new rooms. Citizens can contribute and cover the news working journalists are not informed of are simply do not have time or space to cover. Citizen journalism has opened up the field, no longer are journalists the strong gate-keepers of information, but they are simply the trusted sources used to verify information given by others.

Blogs and citizen journalism are under close watch by the working journalist; however, due to the open content of the internet working journalists and news rooms cannot control what content is posted, or viewed. Instead of complaining about the inconstancies of citizen journalists, working journalists should accept the fact that they are allowed to write whatever they want. Keeping on top of these articles and following up on unknown stories is a great source of information. Verifying information, and balancing possible biased articles from citizen journalists will also give the working journalist more credibility in the eyes of the reader.

Note: Image from http://sajadi4.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/wethemedia1.jpg