Home
On Blogging and Citizen Journalism: Death of the Broadsheet ?
Made Popular Mar 24 2008
“Citizen Journalist” is a role which very much fell upon me unexpectedly more than being something I was more than even remotely aware of when I was invited to write here. I had heard of bloggers and their blogs being significant and causing some media stir here and there but it was not until I read an article in the NewScientist (15 March 2008) about Citizen Journalism that I became aware of the far reaching implications of all of these millions of citizen media content producers.
## - 32% of consumers see themselves as a broadcaster
## - 69% of US adults and teens consume citizen media content
## - 83 blogs are created every minute of every day
## - 45% of consumers create content for others to see (blogs, websites, video, music)
- figures for October ‘07. (March ‘07 = 34%)
## - 69% of consumers view content created by others
- figures for October ‘07. (March ‘07 = 52%)
## - 54% of consumers make their own entertainment (editing photos, video, music)
- figures for October ‘07. (March ‘07 = 40%)
(source: Newscientist)
If journalism is slowly being overtaken by the amateur, will there be any future in it ? What happens when untrained observers begin to manufacture the media through which we receive and perceive the world ? Will there be a point reached of maximum information saturation where everyone both produces and consumes in an orgiastic participatory media frenzy ? Would those of us interested in becoming electronic journalists do better to become syndicated blog writers or online content creators ? Is there a difference ? How prone to manipulation is just such a notionally democratic and decentralised system of information production and publishing ? Will the larger news corporations (i.e. CNN, BBC, etc.) yield easily to this trend away from the traditional monopolies of news production or will they find intelligent ways to incorporate this change and transformation in media-production into their existing centralised corporate structures ?
We are now in an age where media revolutions no longer take decades or centuries to change our world. However all of this Citizen Journalism may play out over the next few months and years and whatever trends or as yet unseen developments may arise, it will remain to my mind a fact that the newspaper, the magazine and the soft-copy book will always maintain an existence as a far more intimate and tactile medium for information reception. Personally, I just can not relax with a computer in the same way I can with a book or a newspaper. I intend to continue buying, for as long as I can, NewScientist, the Canberra Times, assorted literature and my favourite read at the moment: The Guardian.
RSS 
Pralhad
(Who am I?) Mar 24 2008
Nashik,
India
Citizen Journalism to me seems to be a communication innovation and what is not within reach of professional journalists can be online through citizen journalists. It will enrich things in the age of media revolution.
Comment Link
This CJ thing is only good when you have first hand experience of an evolving news. It gives a different picture. Of course, all Tom, Dick and Harry who have fingers and can type cannot become journalists. If it is taken as such then news reporting will be prostituted.
Media & Journalism cannot remain the Fourth Estate if every pedestrian's views are taken as journalistic reporting.
Online CJ is nothing but opinion sharing. It is a three-way communication between the author and his audience, and audience and audience.
The problem is that sometimes with the mob taking over the real issue can be buried and distract focus from what is being 'reported'.
It is fun at most of the times being a part of social news sharing, but most of the times it is chaotic, non-serious and nonsense as well.
The broadsheet will eventually go, but not because of CJ or online social media but because of the reasons it went out in England - carrying convenience while commuting to work etc.
Media & Journalism cannot remain the Fourth Estate if every pedestrian's views are taken as journalistic reporting.
Online CJ is nothing but opinion sharing. It is a three-way communication between the author and his audience, and audience and audience.
The problem is that sometimes with the mob taking over the real issue can be buried and distract focus from what is being 'reported'.
It is fun at most of the times being a part of social news sharing, but most of the times it is chaotic, non-serious and nonsense as well.
The broadsheet will eventually go, but not because of CJ or online social media but because of the reasons it went out in England - carrying convenience while commuting to work etc.
The growth of Internet and unlimited space on web opened the way to blogging and citizen journalism. Blogging gave people free hand to write and express their views on any important events or to share their opinions with people of other parts of the world. It gave birth to the concept of citizen journalism where everyone is journalist. But what I want to say that the broadsheet has its own importance and the growth of web journalism cannot stop it.
Blogging can't score over journalism even with the new name, citizen journalism. Justin Hall, considered as one of the earliest bloggers in the world, had started personal blogging way back in 1994. Steve Gibson is said to be the first professional blogger when Ritual Entertainment hired him to work as a full-time blogger in 1997. Hard core news is a different concept and blogging can't beat this.
Hang on. Don’t write off broadsheet newspapers as yet. Even today majority of people get their dose of news from these newspapers only. There are only a handful of people or so called net savvy techies who rely on net to remain update with the latest. True, broadsheet would soon be replaced by tabloid. Mumbai Mirror, Metro News, Mint and Mail Today which are trying to redefine media are the indication in that direction only. But it would not be easy to replace print media with net and blogging.
Newspapers are there to stay. Not all of the people in the world have access to the Internet.
Citizen journalism is also not 100 percent reliable. Quality journalism depends on critical newsmen who have the power to mold public opinion. Unlike in CJ, some are simply expressing thoughts without basis or poor judgment.
I would still rely on credible newspapers about stories around the world, than to believe instantly on what a novice blogger is saying.
It takes time and expertise to be a reliable newsman. But CJ helps in a way to have a relative truth of what is happening in the other side of the globe.
Citizen journalism is also not 100 percent reliable. Quality journalism depends on critical newsmen who have the power to mold public opinion. Unlike in CJ, some are simply expressing thoughts without basis or poor judgment.
I would still rely on credible newspapers about stories around the world, than to believe instantly on what a novice blogger is saying.
It takes time and expertise to be a reliable newsman. But CJ helps in a way to have a relative truth of what is happening in the other side of the globe.
Can you find news of your local problems on Web? NO..You find everything from international to sports to economic criss, US sub-prime crisis but you will never get the articles describing problems of your locality where you live. This is why newspaper will remain important for everyone.
In today's world of blogging, it is easy to get the news from across the globe and all details about the major international events. But Newspaper gives you the news about happening around the corner because it creates larger effect on their lives. The Newspaper actually fills the gap for such readers.
Some interesting opinions. Perhpas the pressures on classic journalism will merely cause it to metamorphose in some way. I agree that the broadsheet will not die, global paper supply shortages notwithstanding. I do think that the digital era will introduce many more voices to the white noise of the news media and perhaps some form of evolutionary natural selection will process and distinguish more useful information from pure dribble. I make no predictions: that’s why I asked so many questions. ;)
This is endless debate like 'can bloggers become journalist'. the new age journalism and the growth of blogging made it clear that blogs can do journalism, sometimes. The bloggers can be journalists, sometimes. Similarly Blogging and citizen journalism may replace newspaper, sometimes.
If journalism means reporting news with objectivity then I am sure the readers have an eye for detecting prejudices, I am sure that every reader, even if an online one, will definitely know what to buy and what to not. Websites like ibnlive and official sources as the government sites can always be looked up for data. Citizen journalism and blogging would play a pivotal role when it comes to opinions, a sort of online editorial to draw an analogy.
Citizen Journalism is good but writing off real journalism isn’t. Citizen Journalism usually comes from non-professionals and hence it is biased. Thus it must not be compared to broadsheet journalism.
Hey Graemev, great post. You have raised the most important questions.
But I just see the citizen journalists as the better and efficient version of newspapers. The internet is itself a world, why not virtual. And it will try its best to ape the real world as closely as possible.
Similarly in blogosphere which is just a modified version of newspapers people have been empowered to become a journalist. The definition of journalist no more carries proper authorization, but just readers. The virtual world has made it easy and possible enough that all the comments can be ‘printed’ with the story making it possible that all the views and perspectives are presented.
Of course the question that how much blogs can be trusted remains, but the democratic system of blogosphere deals with it. A total fraud will lose readers with time, as happens with newspapers. A person fabricating facts will be corrected by readers themselves.
And yeah, you are no more on the tyranny of editors and newspapers. You can subscribe to your favorite author with subscribing to the newspaper.
But I just see the citizen journalists as the better and efficient version of newspapers. The internet is itself a world, why not virtual. And it will try its best to ape the real world as closely as possible.
Similarly in blogosphere which is just a modified version of newspapers people have been empowered to become a journalist. The definition of journalist no more carries proper authorization, but just readers. The virtual world has made it easy and possible enough that all the comments can be ‘printed’ with the story making it possible that all the views and perspectives are presented.
Of course the question that how much blogs can be trusted remains, but the democratic system of blogosphere deals with it. A total fraud will lose readers with time, as happens with newspapers. A person fabricating facts will be corrected by readers themselves.
And yeah, you are no more on the tyranny of editors and newspapers. You can subscribe to your favorite author with subscribing to the newspaper.
Let me be more radical. Maybe because I am a traditionalist with an opinion why I am saying this.
CJ and social media concept is being floated by some wannabe quick buck entrepreneurs in the name of freedom and osmosis of ideas and opinions. They have made some quick bucks all right. No issues or problems with them.
However, Sirs, no matter whatever online social media does, the credibility of the Press as we know it (electronic, visual, audio and newsprint) cannot be undermined.
@Graeme:, don’t you agree with Souransu with his comment? Very valid point,
I subscribe to his thoughts completely.
@Souransu:
You nailed it bhai. Can’t agree with you more.
CJ and social media concept is being floated by some wannabe quick buck entrepreneurs in the name of freedom and osmosis of ideas and opinions. They have made some quick bucks all right. No issues or problems with them.
However, Sirs, no matter whatever online social media does, the credibility of the Press as we know it (electronic, visual, audio and newsprint) cannot be undermined.
@Graeme:, don’t you agree with Souransu with his comment? Very valid point,
The broadsheet will eventually go, but not because of CJ or online social media but because of the reasons it went out in England - carrying convenience while commuting to work etc.
I subscribe to his thoughts completely.
@Souransu:
You nailed it bhai. Can’t agree with you more.
@Arjun:
Your statement - ’citizen journalists as the better and efficient version of newspapers.’
Efficient cacophony (in terms of mob murmurs where old wives’ tales take part in a serious discussion/issue) and of course efficient rumour mongering and propaganda dispensation.
Let me give you an example in the event you have not understood the gist of my comment here. Mr. X al-Muhammad is a suave, educated member of a fraternity that believes in the restoration of the old Caliphate (of course in the stewardship of the likes of OBL.
Now, an average office-goes doesn’t have that much time to sit on his desk and refute or support the cause(s) with lengthy arguments.
The disciples of the OBL school of thought will lay down their lives over a keyboard should such an opportunity arises.
This is just an example. Don’t take it as it is something really happening today as I am sure you won’t take it as it is something not happening today.
Arjun, you are a smart arse as a result of lot of mugging exercises that you had to endure during your student days right from when you forgot to tighten your belt when you were in kindergarten.
See, it is great to have an education, but pathetic to have let other people’s thoughts. You can take an education but not thoughts.
I would really love to see how you can give me 10 points why social media is better than the traditional media. In fact, if you can refute with one reason why the attempts on social media is not an attempt by the class that can be classified as members of casino and Google ad sense scammer society to bring down the Fourth Estate as a certain Souransu from Calicut, India said.
We Indians are mere gossip mongers. Be it over the evening smoke of a village chaupal or be it here on the web.
I am a victim too for I have wasted around 40 minutes trying to make you understand a few things and disabuse of the gutter concept of CJ and social media that you are harbouring in your rapidly decaying mind.
Your statement - ’citizen journalists as the better and efficient version of newspapers.’
Efficient cacophony (in terms of mob murmurs where old wives’ tales take part in a serious discussion/issue) and of course efficient rumour mongering and propaganda dispensation.
Let me give you an example in the event you have not understood the gist of my comment here. Mr. X al-Muhammad is a suave, educated member of a fraternity that believes in the restoration of the old Caliphate (of course in the stewardship of the likes of OBL.
Now, an average office-goes doesn’t have that much time to sit on his desk and refute or support the cause(s) with lengthy arguments.
The disciples of the OBL school of thought will lay down their lives over a keyboard should such an opportunity arises.
This is just an example. Don’t take it as it is something really happening today as I am sure you won’t take it as it is something not happening today.
Arjun, you are a smart arse as a result of lot of mugging exercises that you had to endure during your student days right from when you forgot to tighten your belt when you were in kindergarten.
See, it is great to have an education, but pathetic to have let other people’s thoughts. You can take an education but not thoughts.
I would really love to see how you can give me 10 points why social media is better than the traditional media. In fact, if you can refute with one reason why the attempts on social media is not an attempt by the class that can be classified as members of casino and Google ad sense scammer society to bring down the Fourth Estate as a certain Souransu from Calicut, India said.
We Indians are mere gossip mongers. Be it over the evening smoke of a village chaupal or be it here on the web.
I am a victim too for I have wasted around 40 minutes trying to make you understand a few things and disabuse of the gutter concept of CJ and social media that you are harbouring in your rapidly decaying mind.
Oooh, the controversy...
2 Arjun
I seem to have created a monster here... ;)
I think Souransu is quite accurate in many respects... and I think that what Citizen Journalism has to offer the world of traditional media is that as though through a process of osmosis or evolutionary natural selection, the better writers and thinkers will float to the top over time and will in some cases be incorporated into the traditional media.
Perhaps, as Marshall Mcluhan may have said (here paraphrasing the original) in the current climate: the Media is the Message. What is surely most important about all of this traditional versus new or professional versus johnny-come-lately is that the general population do, in some manner, manage to receive a well-informed and diverse range of ideas on the nature of the social reality of their world.
Social reality is replicated by communication and the news is a more refined or sophisticated mode of gossip, in a sense. What matters most is that whoever or whatever seeks to obtain that information that in a utilitarian principle of communications and media, the largest number of people receive the most accurate news and widest diversity of opinions possible. The problem with traditional media in context of this utilitarian view is that when ”vested interests” control the media, the information conveyed is of limited scope and for this also potentially of limited value. Rote learning holy books has a similar effect of narrowing community perceptions as do media monopolies and hegemonies as the message diversity becomes limited and people begin to socially and politically operate or function with something less than the optimal amount of comprehension of the facts.
It was Wittgenstein who said: ”Meaning is usage” and we can perhaps see in this a mantra for the digital democracy of information (or gossip) construction - that is, whatever this Citizen Journalism means (or will come to mean) is surely a consequence of the usage we find for it and the ways in which we employ it.
2 Arjun
I seem to have created a monster here... ;)
I think Souransu is quite accurate in many respects... and I think that what Citizen Journalism has to offer the world of traditional media is that as though through a process of osmosis or evolutionary natural selection, the better writers and thinkers will float to the top over time and will in some cases be incorporated into the traditional media.
Perhaps, as Marshall Mcluhan may have said (here paraphrasing the original) in the current climate: the Media is the Message. What is surely most important about all of this traditional versus new or professional versus johnny-come-lately is that the general population do, in some manner, manage to receive a well-informed and diverse range of ideas on the nature of the social reality of their world.
Social reality is replicated by communication and the news is a more refined or sophisticated mode of gossip, in a sense. What matters most is that whoever or whatever seeks to obtain that information that in a utilitarian principle of communications and media, the largest number of people receive the most accurate news and widest diversity of opinions possible. The problem with traditional media in context of this utilitarian view is that when ”vested interests” control the media, the information conveyed is of limited scope and for this also potentially of limited value. Rote learning holy books has a similar effect of narrowing community perceptions as do media monopolies and hegemonies as the message diversity becomes limited and people begin to socially and politically operate or function with something less than the optimal amount of comprehension of the facts.
It was Wittgenstein who said: ”Meaning is usage” and we can perhaps see in this a mantra for the digital democracy of information (or gossip) construction - that is, whatever this Citizen Journalism means (or will come to mean) is surely a consequence of the usage we find for it and the ways in which we employ it.
)
File Type: Image
Perhaps through CJ, there is the diversity of opinions among individuals. People get involved to what is happening around the globe.
Social interaction and concern is strengthened. People’s views come to life and exchange of ideas indirectly helps other people on deciding what to do or what to suggest.
But generally I am happy that I am able to share my views to other people through this blogging activity.
Social interaction and concern is strengthened. People’s views come to life and exchange of ideas indirectly helps other people on deciding what to do or what to suggest.
But generally I am happy that I am able to share my views to other people through this blogging activity.
Nice one Graeme :d
CJ is not by any means end of real journalism. But it is something everyone enjoys for sure.
I mean there is a big difference between a news site and a blog. But to each his own :D
CJ is not by any means end of real journalism. But it is something everyone enjoys for sure.
I mean there is a big difference between a news site and a blog. But to each his own :D
JONTY.
Here are few reasons why social media is better than the traditional media.
1. Because the traditional media is no different from this, social media. On the other hand it is far worse. There you are not allowed to express your views or comments, please don’t sell me that crap of letters to editors.
2. It is really amazing that even in these times you believe that there is only one thought which is right. I would suggest you to read a bit on postmodernism. You believe that OBL school of thought is totally non-sense; and by believing that you yourself has created some terrorists who are left with no other choice to express their views unless by creating some noise. We need more interaction with other thoughts to understand and appreciate them better. Your traditional media don’t allow this and people get more ghettoized in their thinking and forget the existence of other people also.
3. You still believe that ‘traditional-media-journalists’ are some divine creation who are always right. Please see them as humans only, they can err also and does. But out there you can’t correct them at all, but just feel frustrated thinking that many people will believe in that non-sense, as I am doing.
4. You think that there is no cacophony in traditional-media. Please tell me to which newspaper or news-channel you subscribe. I will love to subscribe to that. Or may provide you examples of their cacophony where, literally, there are house-wives expressing their views.
5. Had your traditional-media been really democratic we would not have seen the kind of cartoons which Graeme has presented above. Americans would have believed that there are other people also in the world who are not threat to them and may have saved hundreds of thousands lives.
6. I really don’t know much about the sources of income for traditional media, but do know for sure that a newspaper costs far more than I pay for it. Maybe advertorials is a source, what do you say? Is that far more better than google-adsense?
7. Why are so much against quick buck entrepreneurs? You think your traditional media is doing all that for charity? Do read a bit about creative-destruction and its role in economy.
8. We Indians are good in arguing, and that is our strength. We allow the other person to express his thoughts and which is makes us more tolerant towards different thinking.
9. The thinking that social-media is more non-serious proves that people wish to read that. And also may be the reason that tabloid-journalism or yellow-journalism has flourished. So don’t blame social media, blame people or readers who are interested in them. You can also blame democracy or capitalism which allows the freedom to believe any non-sense (or sense for some).
10. “It is great to have an education, but pathetic to have let other people’s thoughts.” But who are we to decide that what thoughts are right? At least the social media gives me and you also the freedom to believe in our thoughts. You are not forced to adhere to some state-sponsored or Mudroch-sponsored thoughts. Of course our discussion may have wasted a lot of your precious time, but at least I have learnt a lot from this. It has told me that literate can also be uneducated.
11. I really feel bad that people you are defending, the traditional-media, themselves believe in social-media. They have allowed readers or viewers to present their thoughts on their websites. They can’t do so on newspaper or channel proves that the traditional media lacked something which the social-media has catered.
Here are few reasons why social media is better than the traditional media.
1. Because the traditional media is no different from this, social media. On the other hand it is far worse. There you are not allowed to express your views or comments, please don’t sell me that crap of letters to editors.
2. It is really amazing that even in these times you believe that there is only one thought which is right. I would suggest you to read a bit on postmodernism. You believe that OBL school of thought is totally non-sense; and by believing that you yourself has created some terrorists who are left with no other choice to express their views unless by creating some noise. We need more interaction with other thoughts to understand and appreciate them better. Your traditional media don’t allow this and people get more ghettoized in their thinking and forget the existence of other people also.
3. You still believe that ‘traditional-media-journalists’ are some divine creation who are always right. Please see them as humans only, they can err also and does. But out there you can’t correct them at all, but just feel frustrated thinking that many people will believe in that non-sense, as I am doing.
4. You think that there is no cacophony in traditional-media. Please tell me to which newspaper or news-channel you subscribe. I will love to subscribe to that. Or may provide you examples of their cacophony where, literally, there are house-wives expressing their views.
5. Had your traditional-media been really democratic we would not have seen the kind of cartoons which Graeme has presented above. Americans would have believed that there are other people also in the world who are not threat to them and may have saved hundreds of thousands lives.
6. I really don’t know much about the sources of income for traditional media, but do know for sure that a newspaper costs far more than I pay for it. Maybe advertorials is a source, what do you say? Is that far more better than google-adsense?
7. Why are so much against quick buck entrepreneurs? You think your traditional media is doing all that for charity? Do read a bit about creative-destruction and its role in economy.
8. We Indians are good in arguing, and that is our strength. We allow the other person to express his thoughts and which is makes us more tolerant towards different thinking.
9. The thinking that social-media is more non-serious proves that people wish to read that. And also may be the reason that tabloid-journalism or yellow-journalism has flourished. So don’t blame social media, blame people or readers who are interested in them. You can also blame democracy or capitalism which allows the freedom to believe any non-sense (or sense for some).
10. “It is great to have an education, but pathetic to have let other people’s thoughts.” But who are we to decide that what thoughts are right? At least the social media gives me and you also the freedom to believe in our thoughts. You are not forced to adhere to some state-sponsored or Mudroch-sponsored thoughts. Of course our discussion may have wasted a lot of your precious time, but at least I have learnt a lot from this. It has told me that literate can also be uneducated.
11. I really feel bad that people you are defending, the traditional-media, themselves believe in social-media. They have allowed readers or viewers to present their thoughts on their websites. They can’t do so on newspaper or channel proves that the traditional media lacked something which the social-media has catered.