Jun
23
NPR interview about citizen journalism
June 23, 2009 |
By Clarence William Cromwell
Stephen Lacy, journalism professor at Michigan State University, was interviewed by Christina Shockley, host of Michigan Radio’s Morning Edition. The podcast is at the Michigan Radio site.
I’m reposting my comments to the interview below:
A response to two comments Professor Lacy made in this very interesting interview.
1.) Citizen journalists won’t replace professional journalists.
This is correct, but they shouldn’t be expected to. Compare the journalistic process to the local political process. I have the options of becoming a full-time politician (by running for office), or the option of speaking one time at a public hearing that is important to me, or the option of focusing on one issue (such as development or historical preservation) for a long time. The point is that the process is open to the public. Journalism is becoming more open to public participation, and it’s okay if the public participates in ways that don’t resemble, exactly, the work of a professional journalist. Some people want to report on only one topic. Or they want to participate for a limited time and then step back out. Very few people want to practice the full range of what journalists do, and for a long period of time, and for free.2.) Commercial journalism has lost the ability to be hyperlocal.
I don’t believe it’s the job of newspapers or of citizen journalists to bring geographic areas into sharp focus. The blind spots of news organizations are not necessarily geographic. But they are prone to ignore political and social issues that some readers care about deeply. These lapses are more important than when there is road work in my neighborhood, or a parade, or something like that. People are much more energized politically–and journalistically–when they see that things are not working the way they ought to be. When the newspaper isn’t getting the job done, you start writing the news yourself.3.) Lastly, the professor described reader comments as a way that newspapers are imitating citzen journalism. They could actually be described as a kind of citizen journalism. It makes more sense if you call it “democratic journalism” and define it as any kind of participation by civilians in the news reporting process. “Citizen Journalism” is a misleading term, precisely because it conjures up the image of untrained, full time, reporters, and those are very hard to find. What citizens are doing, more than ever, is contributing on an ad hoc basis to the collection and dissemination of news. And they are participating in a discussion about how professional journalists go about their duties. (This is also important, because somebody has to keep any eye on us journalists–We have too much power, and what’s worse: We think we know what we’re doing.) It looks like the bulk of democratic journalism, or citizen journalism, is going to be done in small bites, by ordinary people who ask reporters to add something to the story, or to do a story in the first place, or people who simply offer up information in the comments to an online news story. These people may not think of themselves as citizen journalists.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.