In his chapter “Crowd-Powered Collaboration,” author Mark Briggs talks about the increasing participatory role of the public in the newsgathering process. He quotes Clay Shirky who says about the evolving nature of journalism, “The change isn’t a shift from one kind of news institution to another but rather in the definition of news: from news as an institutional prerogative to news as part of a communications ecosystem, occupied by a mix of formal organizations, information collectives and individuals.” This is the state of the 4th Estate but is this a good thing?
Don’t forget to post your responses by the Tuesday 11/12 @11:59 deadline.
I think that the change in the role of the public in the newsgathering process is neither good nor bad. I believe that there are good aspects and bad aspects to the changing fourth estate. I do agree with the Clay Shirky quote about the changing in the news. It has gone from news as an official sanction to news from a communications network of formal organizations and individuals. News used to come from major media outlets. They were the ones to break the newest stories to the public and were the main suppliers of information. With the rise of technology such as iphones, twitter, and other social media, anyone can provide “news.” Now if there is a breaking story, whoever arrives or receives the information first will break the story. This is regardless of whether or not it’s a news outlet. The news will spread through the internet if the story is big enough and within minutes, the country or even the world could know. I think that a good thing about this is that you get several different views of the news. You get different points of view from individuals to news outlets. However, this could also be a problem. When people include their opinions on issues, you lose credibility and basic rules of presenting news. News should be completely unbiased and when everyone is giving their own version of the story, it is hard to tell which story is actually the correct information. This relates to the idea of citizen journalism and many other articles’ we’ve read. I still stand by my opinion that this is hurting the field of journalism.
I think that there are different levels of participation we need to consider.
The first is commenting. I wrote about this last week on my media critique blog, so I won’t repeat myself. In short, I think that commenting needs to be more carefully monitored and possibly screened. Too many individuals will say anything online and hide in cyberspace. I don’t see that type of participation being beneficial in any degree.
The next item of collaboration I would consider are citizen journalists. They can serve a major purpose by reporting on events in real time until professional journalists are present, providing context, or on a smaller scale, generating buzz. While I think citizen journalists are sometimes questionable, I trust the public to read what they learn to trust and not just take every “journalist” at face value. I think about this as a music blogger all of the time. Someday, I hope to operate my own professional site, and I think that my knowledge and the time I put into it will separate me from Joe Shmo who occasionally rants about an album at home.
I would disagree with the statement that news should be changing from information to communication. I think that it is important for people to talk about journalism, whether it be world events or what is happening in the arts. However, I don’t like the idea of stories being formatted merely as a conversation starter. This seems far too risky to me, as information may be compromised to mere talking points as opposed to a full understanding.
Throughout the chapter, Briggs makes the point that the audience for news is no longer just an audience. People are not content with simply consuming news; they want to get involved in the communication, and generate their own content. Briggs suggests that successful journalists will need to utilize their audiences as a resource, instead of taking them for granted. It’s clear that journalists can certainly gain a lot from looking to their audiences for leads, story ideas, interview sources, etc. Interaction is also immensely important. Journalists can engage their audiences and gather more followers by interacting with them through comments, social media and email. Citizen journalism has its shortcomings, but I think it can ultimately help the fourth estate rather than harm it, if used correctly. A public that participates in journalism is likely to be an informed public. If viewers can generate their own content, they’ll be more compelled to keep up with current events and newsworthy information. Of course, professional journalists can’t rely on information from citizen journalists, without verifying its accuracy, but fact-checking has always been part of a journalist’s job. Crowdsourcing journalism and pro-am journalism go hand in hand because the ‘do it yourself’ attitude of citizen journalists allows them to produce content that can be useful to professional journalists and media organizations. Open-source journalism makes sense because journalism is always supposed to be completely open and transparent at a fundamental level. Journalists are supposed to be ‘watch dogs’ of democracy, keeping an eye out for the public, but it’s quite hypocritical if they’re not open themselves. Link journalism is useful for sharing information in a way that would be impossible with legacy media. Since journalists can link all their information together, this supports the idea that news is becoming communication. That being said, I think there still needs to be a line drawn between actual news and the various forms of communication that occur on the Internet. Citizen journalists can help the journalistic process and add another layer of depth to the news, but it’s unlikely that user generated content could replace hard news. As Briggs said, the quotes from Phil Meyer are truer than ever. A journalist’s job is constantly becoming more difficult and demanding. Journalists must find methods to deliver news in a way that the average person can not. Merely recounting a story won’t cut it anymore.
I personally think that the way the 4th Estate is very in-line with what people today consider a democracy, or a government of the people. This, unfortunately, is erroneous.
This is not purely a government by the people. That way was tried back in the late 1700s after the colonies gained their independence, and it was considered a “mobocracy” because there was so little order and no compass to direct the handling of important affairs. The three branches of legislation act as a guide, thereby eliminating the idea that the government is simply “of the people, by the people, for the people”, as a famous bearded guy once said.
Now, some people know this. However, a large portion of the American population are under the impression that we as citizens are supposed to be in charge, and so they would no doubt invite the idea of a morphing 4th estate which would involve a more people-oriented and easily-accessible and influenced media.
However, the 4th estate is a watchdog first and foremost. Celebrity gossip, talk shows, even weather and traffic forecasts that people so commonly associate with “news” are all branches from the core motivation behind the establishment of a media network and the 1st Amendment. We as journalists have a duty to inform the people of their government’s workings, and keep the government in check.
Now some may believe that mixing “formal organizations, information collectives and individuals” in a “communication ecosystem” may be a good way to go about supplying the media’s portion of the checking and balancing process. However, my concern rises from the suspicion that a lot of these “individuals” and even many “formal organizations” and “information collectives” may not have these motives at heart.
The media is portrayed as glamorous. Reporters get attention. They get to stand in front of TV cameras and look pretty. They get to brave danger and become heroes of sorts. People listen to them. People quote them. Every teenaged kid wants this kind of power, and many of these “individuals” probably haven’t outgrown that need for attention. Therefore, the emphasis will be on how much attention they can get, and there is no doubt in my mind that the messages conveyed – and ultimately the primary goal of the media as watchdog – will suffer in the process.