Whether it is after 9/11, or the rise in the popularity of camera-phones, or even the relative easiness for people to put their thoughts up online, citizen journalism is undeniably climbing up the ladder as “the new media” – so much that it has taken up sections of online news websites. Some of its qualities, of course, include:
- everyone gets a say
- if the story concerns an expert, he/she can provide a deeper and more thorough analysis than a journalist
- it has the rawness that can fully express the citizens’ point of view, especially if the story has victims involved. (What’s better than getting the inside scoop of what REALLY happened?)
But isn’t that the job of a “professional” journalist? If this distinction is even necessary.
As much as I agree with all these good points, I, as an aspiring journalist, also believe I do not pay Ryerson University five grand a year to learn how to press that big round button on my cellphone.
Journalists CAN provide readers with both objective and subjective stories: we know all the right questions to ask; we know all the right people to talk to so every side of the story IS represented; we know all the right details to look for – details that, even told by the victim, would not know to put in because heck, no one would care about the yellow lighter or the stained carpet when a building is on fire. But these details, for a journalist, could be a lead, a new spin to the story, or even a flashing light bulb for a different idea.
So while I think having awards for citizen journalism is fun, citizen journalism could never replace professional journalism because as much as I appreciate the rawness of citizen journalism, it stops at subjectivity. Even if it’s a doctor blogging about cancer or a WWII veteran talking about his past experiences; all the sides are not represented and that’s how “real” readers are getting it.
To put it simply, it’s the difference between Cloverfield and The Day After Tomorrow.
9 comments:
Subjectivity in journalism is subjective. The fact that you use the word "victim" is subjective as you are implying that this supposed "victim" has no agency to resist against whatever they have been "victimized" by and basically labels and defines them by a crime committed against them. I would prefer to use the term "survivor."
I believe that citizen journalism awards are not only not fun but encourage a greater rising in the 'field' and any encouragement can only be negative in my mind.
lol I like the last line, but at the same time I do think it's important to acknowledge that it's more than just taking a phone and doing it randomnly, some people take the citizen journalism they do quite seriously.
I'm laughing at Corey's comment, putting CKLN into practise.
I dont think citizen journalism is not a good idea for the journalism industry because it cheapens the information and people would believe in false information while professional journalists can provide an unbiased point of view. I would go to CBC.com over Facebook for news any time.
i think that citizen journalism can extend beyond taking raw footage. some have educated opinions and actually take the news reporting seriously. they do gather evidence and facts to support their story. however, the difference is that they are not backed up by a news organization and have a journalism degree to add to their credentials.
there is a blurry line of what define " credible, objective journalism".
In the end, I think it depends on the writer and not what type of journalism label they go under
Ha ha yes, Josephine. This is my attempt to CKLNize the world.
I dont see how encouraging this kind of journalism can be negative, maiaya. If anything, I think it's just broadening the field. Who is to say that our way of doing things is the only legit approach.
Joyce,
I agree. Five grand to press a button. I don't think so.
Unless that button leads me to Crystal Tokyo.
Post a Comment