DIY publishing?

With the convenience of Internet access, many journalists nowadays have their own self-published venue; for example, Clive Thompson, a writer for the New York Times Magazine who mainly discusses topics like technology, science and culture, has a blog that allows him to further dive in his researched fields. Likewise, DIY publishing ventures not only allows one to explore one’s interests, but it also opens one’s fields of researches, which are especially useful to journalists, who usually stay within one beat for long periods of time.

If I were to start my own publishing venue, I would use it to complete my lifetime dream: reporting human stories for developing countries. Presently, we understand the developing world as a general picture of sufferings – hunger, thin children, disease, war – or meaningless lists of statistics. Since these incidents occur on the other side of the world, they, somehow, seem unrealistic to us and could trigger nothing but a flash of pity at these images or stories.






Although I do not wish to convert my readers into activists, I want to paint them a human picture in order to instil a greater emotional element and to prove to them that these incidents are not unrealistic despite the distance between us: these people are also human like you and I, their sufferings are not less real because misfortunes surround them daily, and, like us, they also hope to step out of their living situations.

That being said, putting more feature-length profiles into our current news outlets would help attach the human face upon these global phenomenons. Though current newspapers also tackle the softer sides of these issues, such as adding the anecdotal twist on the India organ trade stories, their emphasis remain on the event itself instead of the people involved. By inserting these emotional stories, not only can we paint a more vivid picture for the readers, but can also draw the readers closer to the issues.

image from google images

the journalism battle

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:

1. everyone gets a say
2. if the story concerns an expert, he/she can provide a deeper and more thorough analysis than a journalist
3. 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.