Bits and Pieces

What has been repeatedly driven home to me from our series to readings is that the age of static facts is over. The Internet allows, nay, requires that all stories exist in a constant state of evolution.

A story is filed on the Internet. Tens, hundreds, thousands of readers pounce on the story pointing out flaws, adding more information or criticizing. The next post is filed. The story has changed. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

This is a side of the “publish then select” reality in which we now live. There’s no shame or blame in letting a story out before all of the facts are in. The story just isn’t finished yet.

But with a beginning, middle and no end in sight, can we even still call them news ‘stories?’ What we have now are endless, fluctuating narratives that require constant attention – attention that some believe is eroding as I type.

The facts are always changing. The amount of new information for any ongoing situation is infinite. But human attention is a limited resource. That being said, it’s practically impossible to follow every story we pick up.

Don’t get me wrong. I am thrilled to never again feel the stab of disappointment that comes when you’ve finally bought the last volume of your Encyclopedia Britannica set only to realize that the entire thing is now out of date.

My fear is that in an environment where half-facts and a first stab is what draws readers in that many may not stick around to watch the story grow - a world where people have only read the first chapter of every book.

‘Solid information’ is done (if it ever existed in the first place). I can appreciate why that’s happened. But we need to be careful and thoughtful about what takes its place.

I come to mourn the death of hard facts, not to praise them

Elements of Journalism

The latest edition of The Elements of Journalism came out in April. Not surprisingly, a tenth principle has been added: "The rights and responsibilites of citizens - flowing from new power conveyed by technology to the citizen as a consumer and editor of their own news and information."

Blog Response - Truth and the Net

In the article "Truth and the Net", Cory Doctorow examines that you can't trust what you read on the Internet but, not only that, you can't really trust any form of the media. Not only can it be bias but it could be altered on the Internet or comments can be amended on the following week's newspaper.

Wikipedia was the perfect example of how the Internet can change information in a split second through Internet users, even though it s a site that is supposed to be looked upon as a dictionary. The ideas may be accurate but to use it as your main resource would lead to problems.

There is also the problem, as was mentioned, that anyone could post online. People even have the ability to create their own websites through free services and write about what ever they wish to, as long as it does not afflict upon any laws or other people's rights.

Even though all of this is true, people are going to believe what ever they want to believe even if it does seem to be faulty. They do, however, have the chance to piece together all the information they receive from different resources and decide for themselves which is accurate (at least to the highest degree) or which is completely falsified.

Cleaning House

Just some things that couldn't quite make the draft, like bill gibson's awesome, liked seeing that, though Cory didn't have much of a point. The raison d'etre (?) of the clip was to introduce Canadian's to hippies, which it did. Bill was quite authentically high.
Oddly enough, Kathryn Cramer is a SF writer too, took me some digging to find her aforementioned hobby, but it's there.
Found some angry Internet thugs who haaaate her, too.
and could a Newsweek writer have used this for a headline two years ago?

Truth is an Abundant Economy

Media's media. At the heart of it, I feel that's all Cory Doctorow needed to say. Though it appears to be his duty to inform us of the future, he hasn't really started writing for it yet. In a word, brevity.

I appreciate his point though, it reminds me of an angry little zine article I wrote when I was fourteen (Everyone's a liar!). Indeed, you cannot trust everything you read on the Internet, nor in the newspapers, and I think it's evidence of the Net's awesome aura of change that suggests this has to be stated, that it has created this atmosphere where everything old is new again.

To me, things are more the same now then they ever were, if every medium humanity has ever used has worked for and against us, it would be foolish to expect anything else from the Web.

For example, "Publish, then select" appeals personally to me. I have the time, resources and inclination to treat my own life as an abundant resource to be wasted on the Internet, examining stories from as many perspectives as I could ever want. For the average sum of humanity, those who may not be on their parents dole, with time to waste and a high speed connection, an abundance of answers does not provide clarity. A multitude of voices can be an intimidating thing. Most people rely on Yahoo! News to deal with the complexity of choices available.

I can appreciate a reluctance to give up on the strengths of educated journalism, but I fear the power that the long tail is actually managing to give to the Man, whoever he may be. Traditional journalists are going to have their hands full dealing with the effects of conglomeration and consolidation, to which the Internet is so finely suited, and it may well be up to those untrained individuals willing to tell the truth to inform us in the future. Like the CBC.

The improbably named Pip Coburn wrote an excellent, meandering article while eating a salad that looks both at Facebook's attempt to manipulate the long tail for profit, by hacking at it's users privacy, and at how protest works within the long tail. Things get blown out of proportion very easily on the Net, and it's hard to tell how many people are complaining about something, and why.

There clearly are people using the Net to speak for freedom, however, which I fear can get forgotten in the debate over whether someone is legitimate, and which definitely will be lost if the Man has his way.

What makes citizen journalists less biased and more truthful?

I would like to pick up on the discussion in class and Stephanie’s blogpost “The Gift and the Liberation of Knowledge”, as I think a debate on this blog could be useful both before the Kate McDonnell-visit and to us as journalism students. What I would like to question is, what makes citizen journalists less biased and more truthful than traditional journalists?

I am, as all other, biased being a journalism student and having done internship at two traditional magazine media, but I think it is important not to be totally dazzled by the new way of making journalism. If citizen journalists are writing on equal terms as the traditional journalist (and they must be, since they, in some eyes, can out rule the mainstream media), then there is a chance that they are just as biased and untruthful as traditional journalist.

One argument, said in class, was that citizen journalists have more time and words to work with, but since when has more time and longer articles been a guarantee for more honest and objective journalism? I am having difficulties seeing why citizen journalists should do a better job than an educated journalist.

If they can, why educate yourself to become a journalist? Wouldn’t it be more useful to get insight in society with a university degree in for example political science and then just write from there? But what about the basic craft of communication, ethics and the strive for objectivity - are the skills, which I’ve learned the past three and a half years so simple that everybody without education can use them just as well as I can?

I’ve looked at some online debates about citizen journalism vs. traditional journalism, and they are all very pro or con (The Editors Weblog, The Techdirt Blog, Organgrinder - The citizen journalism debate). It is difficult to find a place in the middle of it. I want to embrace citizen journalism and be able work with it, but still I think it is important to acknowledge our journalism education as an education that gives us the tools of “accuracy, objectivity, a commitment to informing the public, and not unjustly causing harm”, as someone writes on The Techdirt Blog.

This blogpost consist mostly of my questions to the brave new world of citizen journalism. I found no answers. Perhaps the debate will provide me with some, perhaps not. But I find it important to keep on debating citizen journalism and not just accepting it either as the new main way of making journalism or as useless amateur work. As critical as we are towards traditional journalism, as critical we need to be towards citizen journalism.

The Gift and the Liberation of Knowledge

The basis behind citizen journalism is writing to share your opinion and inform others. Now, although at some point this practice may turn out a profit -in the beginning stages it is all for free. This is where the theories of the gift economy , and the economics of abundance come into play.

The idea that links citizen journalism with the gift economy is the notion that once information is put out there; someone can read it, grow from it, come to their own conclusions, and offer a response -thus continuing the chain of awareness. As is mentioned in the reading, “The Gift,” by Tara Hunt, “A gift is not, in fact, a gift unless it continues circulating.” Therefore, citizen journalists must come prepared to embrace the social duty that the gift economy grants them-they are not just writing in a diary-in fact a citizen journalist holds an extreme amount of power; they are able to reach people from all walks of life, who will be able to engage them in argument, conversations, agreement, etc. So, while the citizen journalist is churning out information for free, they are always receiving a form of payment through the enlightenment and dialogue from which they are able to contribute to and through which feedback is handed back to them from various people of different perspectives, and different walks of life.

Both theories boil down to one main point. The sharing of knowledge is the most important defining aspect of modern society. Traditional journalism of the past only allowed for certain biased versions of knowledge to be presented, therefore, before the creation of the World Wide Web, and consequently, citizen journalism- truth was a non-existent word. However, even though people will never change- because it is virtually impossible to develop an opinion which is not biased by one aspect or another-the fact that so many opinions are available at our fingertips allows us to be able to search for our own truth, without having to have one be forced fed to us.

Sometimes the sheer abundance of the knowledge available can be overwhelming, but that is the beauty of the economy of abundance-now, more than ever before, the people are in control. This control has also developed through the emergence of the trust economy . If people are able to trust in the content of a particular blog, or a particular writer-then the power of that writer will spread.

Citizen journalism represents the unification of humans; we don’t need mainstream media to communicate for us any longer. Anyone can give the gift that keeps on giving-the gift of knowledge.

just a hiccup

someone's Internet advertising wing dropped the ball.
heads will roll.
i suspect the ad industry considers this era a bumpy youth,
low advertising profits and an independent minded web culture.
smoothed out eventually by forward thinking and the weight of industry, no doubt.
found on mtlweblog.

Sovereigntist bloggosphere deflating

The Quebec sovereigntist bloggosphere has lost motivation, according to a demotivated sovereigntist blogger.

Technical skills needed in journalism jobs

This is very interesting; an American perspective but certainly relevant here also.

"What technical skills are media companies looking for in journalists? Eric Ulken, a producer at The Los Angeles Times and instructor at USC, took all the online job descriptions on JournalismJobs.com from this year, omitted the non-technical words (like 'editor', 'seeks' and "self-starter") and built a tagcloud out of the rest."

Here's what it looks like."

via CyberJournalist.net

On Gift Economies

Citizen agency is a pr firm, that said their specialty is helping companies integrate themselves into communities and build relationships with the personages and institutions of those communities. What powers their success is not ,I believe, the whimsical and careless (anti) business model that Tara Hunt puts forward in “the gift”, but a seemingly effortless ability to apply peer to peer models to mainstream marketing and communication. To be critical, their success likely relies on a combination of their knowledge of the markets they serve and their ability to exploit new media niches rather than on an esoteric concept of social bliss through gift giving.
What Hunt and Anderson are describing in their articles isn’t so much revolutionary as it is the intangible economy of good business and courtesy. Perhaps their clients never had such traits, or lost them as they expanded but the idea of offering more, “going the extra mile” as a company or service provider is nothing new. While it is niave to assume that because companies are interested in improving community relations they necessarily are interested in improving an imagined social condition, Hunt does assert that creating actual public relationships is the client’s responsibility.
Which brings up practical considerations for journalists and media workers, if gift giving (working for free) is what will develop us as individuals within the new media to what public do we give our time and abilities? Paying rent and food is the bottom of any job, and its easy to get idealistic about your motives when you have plenty to give, but the current dillution of media means there are plenty of people willing to give it away for free. While this may enhance our collective intellect or foster a sense of community it undermines individual journalistic and media skill in favor of sheer masses of information.
Possible solutions to the employment problem range from working in consultancy to taking on advertising. What seems to be the most practical however is confining one’s gift giving to the public they wish to address. Thereby exploiting the capital of niche information and enhancing personal position for capital gain.

The Short End of the Long Tail

I’d like to explore the changing landscape of the entertainment industry and its effects on culture. The real change has come about with a shift from mass production to “the Long Tail” business model, and this change is economically and culturally significant. All of the sub-genres and independent releases in film, literature and music fall under the Long Tail. It is essentially a “miss” as opposed to a “hit” market. But it’s a massive market. As venture capitalist Kevin Laws puts it, “the biggest money is in the smallest sales.”

WIRED journalist Chris Anderson’s great article shows how the Long Tail of business has powerful economic sway, and its effects have reshaped the cultural landscape. “Long Tail business can treat consumers as individuals, offering mass customization as an alternative to mass-market fare,” he writes. “And the cultural benefit of all of this is much more diversity.” But the depth of Anderson’s study of the positive aspects of the Long Tail business model forgets some of the underlying issues to this new economic power, which is shaping the way we see the world and ourselves.

From an economic standpoint, the Long Tail is part and parcel of a fragmentation of the market into a highly nuanced, small business based or niche model. The implications of this fragmented market are significant. Under mainstream or mass-production, there is certainly an economic, political and cultural hegemony, but there is also a strong trade union presence. With the increasing competition and narrowing profit margins of mainstream entertainment, “the death of the blockbuster,” corporate belt tightening was inevitable, and the Writers Guild of America’s strike may serve as one example amongst thousands. In the media industry, journalism layoffs are taking place at media outlets in North America and abroad as media outlets fragment, diversify and move online to compete globally. The effects are even felt at home with the Montreal Gazette buyouts (I wrote on this in “How the West is Run”).

While this new niche market does allow artists, producers and writers access to specialized markets, it comes at the cost of employment security. The mainstream has naturally exposed this volatility, relying increasingly on part-time, temporary and sub-contract work, and in the case of newspapers, this exposure means more freelance writers and looser contracts. Insurance coverage, pension rights, job security, all art lost in what I would call the short end of the Long Tail. Anderson points out that niche markets cut out “packaging, manufacturing, distribution [and] space overheads,” which, I would argue, mark a clear drop in the labour force. It would not be difficult to prove that these new market conditions have made disadvantaged groups such as women, blacks, aboriginals, minorities and the disabled more vulnerable.

But what effects does the Long Tail have on culture? Certainly, the Long Tail is mutually beneficial for artists and consumers alike. Artists are pleased because they have virtually locked a global niche market, and consumers are pleased because of the diversity of specialized consumer products available. But to this end, niche markets need to be in a state of constant change in order to sustain their small hold on a volatile market. The Long Tail then pays close attention to quick-changing fashions and new trends, so that the only constant in culture is change itself. Consumers of arts and entertainment are then placed in a state of constant change as the market adapts to new sensations and specialized desires. Art and entertainment in the Long Tail is reabsorbed into the market, itself in a state of constant change as new trends develop. While culture does become ephemeral and unstable, the effects of diversity provided by the Long Tail are praiseworthy so long as the distinction between culture and product is clear.

Will The Long Tail survive if Blockbuster dies?

I found some interesting perspectives on The Long Tail after the reading and discussion of phenomenon. Two of the questions I find relevant in this context are:
1. If the tail can’t exist unless it has a body of mainstream to cling on to, how is it going to handle the ‘death of Blockbuster’?
2. Why is it important that the consumers go down The Tail? If you want to listen to Britney Spears, you want to listen to Britney Spears and not some 1980s ska band from Coventry, England (using Chris Anderson's example from the article ‘The Long Tail’).

1. If The Tail can’t exist unless it has a body of mainstream to cling on to, how is it going to handle the ‘death of Blockbuster’?
“…the success of Netflix, Amazon, and the commercial music services shows that you need both ends of the curve. Their huge libraries of less-mainstream fare set them apart, but hits still matter in attracting consumers in the first place.” So says Chris Anderson in the article ‘The Long Tail’. If what Anderson later claims in his public diary about the death of Blockbuster, the end of hits as we know them and people not following the herd anymore is becoming a reality, then The Long Tail could become a lot shorter in the future.

It seems like Anderson is contradicting himself, but perhaps he is doing so, because The Long Tail-train already has taken off. And almost every citizen in the global digital world is on it. By now most people know the main places to go on the Internet in the search of music, books, film ect. and once they are in the ‘shop’, the trip down The Long Tail can begin. One could argue that The Long Tail began in a time when mainstream was necessary to get the customers to the ‘shop’, but as the world becomes more and more aware of the possibilities of the Internet, mainstream is playing a smaller role in The Long Tail-theory.

2. Why is it important that the consumers go down the tail? If you want to listen to Britney Spears, you want to listen to Britney Spears and not some 1980s ska band from Coventry, England (using Andersons example from the article ‘The Long Tail’).
Anderson calls The Long Tail the ending of the tyranny of the hits, and I can see why. Consumers can now get what they like the most and not what somebody in the industry decided should be the most liked. But I think it’s important to remember that hits didn’t become hits for no reason, they became hits because a lot of people liked it (that being music, books, film ect.). Things in the ‘lower’ end of The Tail are not becoming big hits because not enough people like it. People from the different industries most sometimes know what they are talking about. And why should consumers go down The Tail, if they are happy with the content in top of the popularity-scale, as it seems a lot of the ‘hit-buying’ consumers are?

One answer to that could be that you never know if The Long Tail is going to present you to something new and exciting. Something you would actually like. In other words it could be a cultural eye-opener. Another could be that they shouldn’t, but The Tail gives the opportunity for doing so, and the fact that it’s in ‘the shallow end of the bitstream’ the different industries makes most of their money, shows that a lot of consumers like to go down The Tail. Even if they just intended to buy the newest song from Britney Spears.

Four great Citizen Journalism articles on BoingBoing.net

I'm just reading BoingBoing this afternoon and I see four articles that relate directly to stuff we're talking about in class:

Sci-fi objects from a 3D printer - John alluded to the Long Tail of Manufacturing when he mentioned the option of custom-built Nike sneakers. Here's an article about the 3-D printers which will bring Long Tail manufacturing mainstream.

Fair Use for the 21st Century - Journalists and lawyers argue about 'fair use' on the NYTimes blog. Something we're going to be talking about a lot later on in the course.

China: Citizen Journalist beaten to death

Fair Copyright for Canadians - More on Digital Rights Management from a Canadian perspective. We touched on this legislation in an earlier class.

Hope you find these useful!

Death of the blockbuster? its about time.

Chris Anderson seems to know what he's talking about. In fact, that's the first thing he lets us know about; he casually mentions that the reason he hasn't been posting lately is due to his jet setting in Switzerland for the World Economic Forum followed by a trip to L.A. for the Entertainment Gathering. After plugging his own book for awhile, he tells us that we are indeed lucky because our humble internationally known Chris Anderson will in fact, never forget about us little people and continue his fervent work on his blog!

The first thing that struck me when reading his article was A) to me the death of the blockbuster movie is a good thing (which he dances around but never says outright) and B) i'm not so sure blockbuster's are dead at all.

Take for example that Spiderman 3, while being lambasted by critics and viewers alike as waste of time, broke box office records grossing $151.1 million domestically and $382 million worldwide in its first few days. While Spiderman 3 was released long after Anderson made this post, my feeling is it proves his prediction somewhat wrong.

What weakens my conviction in Anderson's bold statements even more, is that the previous holder of the opening weekend box office revenue was a 2006 movie, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which is also currently the 6th highest grossing movie of all time.

My question is, might it be a stretch to proclaim blockbuster's dead when six of the top ten all time grossing movies in America are within the last few years?
As far as the whole internet piracy angle goes, it just so happens i have a whole feature on media piracy dealing entirely with the impact downloading music and movies coming out in the link's technology issue in a few weeks, so i won't even get started on that or this post will get longer than it already is. I feel the same way as Anderson does on this one, which is that internet media piracy as it stands now, benefits the music and movie industry more than it does harm it. The reason why, as Chris says, is because the public have access to movies from anywhere in the world and filmmakers who want to stray from the pack and do some interesting niche, but less marketable films, can now do so and still find a decent audience.

Freebies versus Movie Theatres

OR

After reading Chris Anderson's article entitled "The Death of the Blockbuster, Part IV", I realized that what he was indicating was true but I think that there is more to it than what he proposes. I believe that if people are able to download these blockbuster movies as opposed to going out and paying for them, they'll choose to download.

When it comes to movies, you can never tell if you will enjoy them just by watching the previews, so by having the ability to download these movies, you no longer have to spend money on a film that you didn't even like.

Yes, I believe that it also has to do with the prices that movie theatres are now charging but if there wasn't that possibility to download, people would still pay that $10 fee to watch the newest Will Smith movie because of the fact that it received such great reviews.

This link shows just how much revenue the movie industry has lost due to bootlegging, internet piracy, and illegal copying. The loss is in billions and most of their loss comes from University campuses where the students have no difficulties understanding the technologies and have an easy time finding these new movies and downloading them and then burning them on to a DVD.

All of what Anderson stated was justified but I believe that there is something deeper about the fact that movies and music are still as popular as they were before, however they are not being seen in the movie theatres or the CD are not being bought, and that has to do with the new technology and the fact that they can all now be pirated.

Tradition and Hegemony

Traditionalists dearly cling on to the belief that the “time-honoured” practices of journalism (print and, to a certain extent, broadcast) are superior to emerging technologies. Dismissing the citizen journalism movement to mere soft journalism status, the cultural elitist beliefs reek of Arnoldian superiority and of taste distinction that is evident in the high/mass culture divide. This preservation of traditional news values is evident in Adam L. Penenberg’s piece that was featured in Wired magazine.

This thinking is detrimental to empowering media consumers. As power is shifting to the consumers, newsmakers (and I use this word in both a literal and ironic sense) are publishing articles that decry against citizen journalism in order to pander to potential hesitations that other consumers may have. After all, who wouldn’t trust a professional journalist who is trained to report the news?

What is more horrifying is the sheer audacity of David Leigh as he stresses the importance of upholding traditional values, hiding behind a veil of an almost apologetic person trapped in this struggle (as he claims he is for the future but quickly laments the lost of the role of the reporter). Furthermore, Leigh mentions that people link top-down authority to fascist policies yet concludes his article by stating that

"...the power of reporting does not lie entirely — or even mostly — in the nobility of its practitioners, or their professional skills. Or their celebrity status. It also lies in the preservation of media outlets that are themselves powerful."

He himself dismisses the journalist to the power of the media outlet!

Are we, the consumers of the final product, and journalists alike, powerless to the almighty outlets? According to Leigh, yes, because blogs and other non-professional “reporting” will flood the real news. After all, “[t]hey enjoy the sound of their own voices and confirm their own prejudices through the delicious experience of self-publishing. Paradoxically, more becomes less” (Leigh. The Guardian). Leigh does not realize that consumers do indeed have autonomy and can search through the flood. Scouring several sources is not a race to the bottom as he describes, it gives an individual contextual insight. I do find it troubling that Leigh, as an investigative journalist makes this claim as do other investigative journalism sources (such as Mother Jones among others).

Any new medium is typically held up to scrutiny by die-hard traditionalists. Usually, the new is associated with the masses, further fanning the flames against the discussed technology. Take photography as an example. Several scholars dismissed it as a mere representation and refused to see the artistic merit behind it. After all, a single print does not take nearly as much time as an oil-based painting AND the masses love the portraits that they can get. Citizen journalism is no different. Since blogging has been embraced by pop culture, it will continue to be treated as second rate, left to the realm of soft journalism.

I say let’s enjoy the ride and see where this movement is headed. Is it truly counter-cultural? Probably not. Corporate arenas are already profiting from it. But it is rocking the hegemonic hold that News Inc. outlets have on the consumer and I, for one, am delighted in that. I leave you with a photomontage by Hannah Hoch, a Berlin Dadaist that I feel shares similar philosophies with the modern citizen journalist.

Response to “Are Reporters Doomed?”

Journalists would like to believe that they are the be all and end all of modern society- and that without them, knowledge and truth as we know it would come to a standstill. Although, with the recent surge which has taken place in the area of citizen journalism-perhaps tradtional journalists aren't as necessary anymore.

The article “Are Reporters Doomed?” may strike a cord with ‘hardcore’ journalists, as they would like to believe that the whistle-blower investigative journalism of the past will remain prevalent in the news culture of the future. Unfortunately, I must agree with the position that David Leigh has taken in his article, he argues that money being taken away from traditional media is the first sign of disaster,he states that the "journalistic future will be a future with less money around. That won't be good. Too much competition leads to a race to the bottom. And you can't report if you can't afford to eat". Journalism as we know it- in fact media as a whole-seems to be on its way out.

Blame it partially on the internet revolution, but also on the problems that have occurred with media credibility in the last few years. An example of this would be the whole Dan Rather fiasco-affectionately nicknamed by bloggers as "Rathergate"-when he tried to break the story on George W.’s National Guard time. Whether this story was true or not, his integrity was challenged-and as a result his credibility was, if not completely ruined- then at least greatly tarnished. The point I’m trying to make is that, perhaps incidents like this have lead to a culture of mistrust towards journalists, and an inclination to search for more personalized sources of information. Furthermore, the role that bloggers played in disproving Rather's report- and in spreading knowledge about the scandal-sends a strong message; the power of the citizen journalist actually exceeds that of the professional journalist.

Leigh states that in the future there will be, “hyper-local sites — postcode journalism fuelled cheaply by neighbourhood bloggers. But not proper reporters.” This can be good and bad. The reason that this type of journalism would be beneficial, is that the insider perspective that it would provide may prove to be much more insightful, and much less disputable-because it is coming directly from the source. Of course, this can also be bad because outsider perspectives would be unwelcomed, and deemed un-credible.

Journalists should continue to fight for their positions in society, and their presence should still be felt-even if it is an online presence. At the end of the day when the rent needs to be paid, how many journalists will be able stick to it, or perhaps they may also revert to citizen journalism as a hobby-and have to find a new day job.

Thoughts on first week's readings

First of all, I don't think that the reporter is a dying breed. There will always be a need for the "classic" reporter because not everyone may be willing to go the extra mile for a story. I.E be on the front lines in Iraq. We must continue to teach the five W's because that is the backbone of any story. If you don't have the five W's then all you have is an opinion. I do believe however that blogging and citizen journalism is the future of journalism though. I mean look at how many big time newscasters (Katie Curic, Anderson Cooper etc...) have their own blogs.

I get all my news from television and the web because it is easier for me to just click or change the channel. When I read a newspaper, it ALWAYS falls apart whenever I turn the page. Not to mention it is better for our planet if we get our news from other sources.

Media and Power

I went to town with the first week’s readings – my bad.

David Leigh’s Article “Are reporters doomed?” sets up an opposition between “new media” and “traditional reporting,” the former of which, Leigh suggests, threatens to destroy the latter. Leigh defines traditional media as media which maintain a set of values practiced by veterans. Traditional media is also in a position of power, “but the power of reporting does not lie entirely — or even mostly — in the nobility of its practitioners, or their professional skills,” Leigh writes. “It also lies in the preservation of media outlets that are themselves powerful.” Leigh sees traditional media under threat by new media or citizen journalism, which may destabilize traditional media’s position of power. “That is perhaps one of the biggest dangers of the media revolution. When the media fragment — as they will — and splinter into a thousand websites, a thousand digital channels, all weak financially, then we will see a severe reduction in the power of each individual media outlet. The reporter will struggle to be heard over the cacophony of a thousand other voices.” Leigh's writing almost comes across as red scare propaganda! Financial power, Leigh argues, is the means of gaining and retaining power, and the fragmentation caused by the new “media revolution” are more threatening because they are “all weak financially.” Leigh is then suggesting a direct correlation between the varying levels of power in the media and the financial status of each of these positions of power. To this end, it comes across as if traditional media is only powerful insofar as fits within the framework of those in financial power.

Nicholas Lemann’s piece “The Amateur Hour: Journalism without Journalists,” published in The New Yorker, sets out by asking the question, “what has citizen journalism actually brought us?” The first positive influence Lemann suggests new media is endowed with is it’s democratization of the “media oligarchy” that Leigh so compellingly pleas for to remain in power:

In their Internet versions, most traditional news organizations make their reporters available to answer readers’ questions and, often, permit readers to post their own material. Being able to see this as the advent of true democracy in what had been a media oligarchy makes it much easier to argue that Internet journalism has already achieved great things.

Lemann also makes a second point about new media:

The most memorable photographs of the London terrorist bombing last summer were taken by subway riders using cell phones, not by news photographers, who didn’t have time to get there. There were more ordinary people than paid reporters posting information when the tsunami first hit South Asia, in 2004, when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, in 2005, and when Israeli bombs hit Beirut this summer. I am in an especially good position to appreciate the benefits of citizen journalism at such moments, because it helped save my father and stepmother’s lives when they were stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

In other words, citizen journalism is effective for the immediacy with which it provides information. Traditional media are then reliant upon the citizens immediately affected by any one particular story. As Lemann writes, however, “over time, the best information about why the hurricane destroyed so much of the city came from reporters, not citizens.” This would suggest a supplanting of the discourse of those affected by the news to a dominant discourse of those affecting the resulting fallout of the initial news (i.e. those in power).

Our final reading, Adam Penenberg’s “The New Old Journalism” revealed a reactionary tendency apparent in all three articles. Just as Leigh called for a kind of “slow journalism” in the face of citizen journalism, Penenberg says the fundamental values of traditional reporting have never been more important when faced by the new media. It’s as if all three commentators grow excited about new media, taking it to its “revolutionary” verge, but then pull back in reaction and actually call for a greater emphasis on traditional forms of journalism.

Classifying Citizen Media: In-Class Assignment

In this article, JD Lasica classifies citizen journalism under the following six categories:

1) Audience participation (such as user comments attached to news stories, personal blogs, photos or video footage captured from personal mobile cameras, or local news written by residents of a community).
2) Independent news and information Websites
3) Full-fledged participatory news sites
4) Collaborative and contributory media sites
5) Other kinds of "thin media." (mailing lists, email newsletters)
6) Personal broadcasting sites

1. In groups, classify each the following sites under one of the above categories.
2. Present each site to the class giving us:
a) A brief description of the site.
b) Which category of citizen journalism does it belong under? Why? Should there be a different category for this?

Group 1

http://www.backfence.com/
http://blogs.reuters.com/us/
http://lifehacker.com/

Group 2

http://digg.com/
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/


Group 3

http://www.regrettheerror.com/
http://www.ibrattleboro.com/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/mingram


Group 4

http://www.midnightpoutine.ca/
http://english.ohmynews.com/
http://w5.montreal.com/mtlweblog/


Group 5

http://www.habsinsideout.com/
http://yulnews.com/blog/about/
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page

How to write a blog post on the class blog

1. Go to Blogger.com and sign in with a Google ID which you created in the first class (if you don't have one, create one).



2. In the box where it says "Manage your blogs", click on the green + ("Plus") sign where it says, "New Post"



3. Type your "Title" and "Body" of the post in their respective fields and click "Publish" when you're finished.



4. That's all!

How to Get Started

Welcome, students! This blog is our home base for the course. Everything you need to know will be posted here.

Here's your first assignment -- get set up on the class blog.

Email me your email address right away. I'll sign you up for the class blog.

BLOG: The whole world can read the blog. You're expected to post here with news and tidbits and thoughts based on our readings. Never blogged before? Here's a quick tutorial on how to write a blog post.

Vital Stats

This class is held Thursday mornings from 6pm-8:15pm in the CJ (Communications & Journalism) Building, Room 3.306, Loyola Campus (Map).

Office hours are by appointment. Email me to set up an appointment.