OpenIDParticipatory journalism
Participatory (or citizen) journalism is getting a lot of coverage at the moment, thanks in part to Dan Gillmor’s new book We the Media. For a great example of participatory journalism in action, check out Wikipedia’s outstanding coverage of the 2004 Summer Olympics. It’s already a serious competitor to the official site in terms of content, and its wiki nature means it will only get better as the games continue. Hat tip: Gadgetopia.
I’ve been a fan of Wikipedia’s current affairs coverage for quite a while. The site is especially useful in catching up with ongoing stories, in particular for detailed profiles of people and groups currently making the news (random example: Muqtada al-Sadr). Despite the site’s open nature (or maybe because of it), they generally do an excellent job of keeping to a neutral point of view.
Citizen journalism is unlikely to ever replace traditional journalism completely, but it can certainly enhance it. Then again, with OhMyNews now one of the most influential media outlets in Korea (see this interview for details) this is one trend that’s not going to go away.
I agree with your opinions on first-person web-based journalism. I would love to hear reports from Iraq (for example) that were not biased by the media, but actually came from the people involved, the soldiers, Iraqi citizens etc.
However, I fear there are movements on the web that would seek to artificially sway opinion. The Mozilla Evangelists are a prime example of this. People who canvas blogs with military precision in order to promote their own products. To me it smacks of door-to-door Christian salesman who peddle their own beliefs to those who would otherwise be undecided.
Chris Beach - 16th August 2004 18:52 - #
This is next step after blogs to be honest, only anyone with a the urge to participate, never mind web space, can contribute.
I think this is the only way that real news can compete against the media globals. There are now a handfull of companies that control all of our media outlets, if they think a story is unprofitable, that reporting the truth isn't making them money, or someone with enough money steps in to discretely suggest they don't publish that what's to stop them not publishing it?
A good reason to keep organisations like the BBC operating.
I think this will encourage greater communication, wider views and, ultimately, better coverage of all topics, large or small.
Lee - 16th August 2004 21:13 - #
He was interested in the outline on my first approach, but as I read the material he sent me (5Mb.), I found my "feeding regionals" vision soaking away - and the idea of replacing portals like thisislondon or thisisbath were disposed.
The culture here doesn't seem accepting to the idea if you imagine the news-eating portal and a user interacting. The front page writers on OhMyNews get paid. But honestly, most of the stories are just trash. It might as well be a community weblog in the UK. You get the bad apples, the great posters, the good writers, the terrible grammar, the liers, the fantasists, etc.
Reality strikes - journalists are trained people.
Amit - 16th August 2004 22:04 - #
There's an article about amateur web journalism -- specifically blog journalists -- in the most recent edition of Extra!, a bi-monthly magazine put out by FAIR. Unfortunately, they only publish certain articles on their web site, so you'll have to find a hard copy to read it. Worse, it's likely only available in the U.S. Shoot!
One suprising part of the article, for those who can't get hold of a copy: apparently, bloggers first broke the story of U.S. Senator Trent Lott's statement that the U.S. would have been better off if a segregationist candidate had won the presidential race in 1948. In lieu of the Extra! article, here's a Talking Points entry on Trent Lott.
Brian - 21st August 2004 15:29 - #