The cream of the crop

After struggling to verbalise why I am such an avid supporter of citizen journalism I thought I'd try a different method.

The following three YouTube posts all introduce the concept of citizen journalism and define it in there own way.

Citizen Journalism - What Is It?
Posted by Robin Good on August 23, 2006



I think this one was actually shown in one of our tutes, but I finally got to watch it properly this time around, instead of crowded around the one computer screen trying to see from half way across the tute room...

Behind the Citizen Journalism Revolution
Posted by digitaljournal on December 28, 2007



This one also features on Nat's blog.

New Media and Citizen Journalism
Posted by Whaschmackity (aka George Dorrence) on July 26, 2007



This one also features on Brendam's blog

COMMENT in response to Matthew Randall's Blog

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Matthew Randall entitled YouTube Political Parody and Satire Videos, that was published to his blog on Friday, May 2, 2008:

I love YouTube. It becomes blatantly obvious if you look over my blog. I’m also a fan of political satire. So I enjoyed reading your post Matthew, thanks.

It was great to see someone go beyond the concepts that Bruns has presented us with this semester. Your discussion of the public sphere, for example, was well supported with relevant quotes from your references (although hyperlinking your references would have been helpful) and demonstrates critical engagement with the information rather than simple regurgitation of unit content. I believe your argument would have been more sophisticated if you had provided actual examples of political parody/satire videos from YouTube. They’re not hard to find! I find Unleashed: Sledge (aka abcaustralia) a great place to start, otherwise the trusty YouTube search function rarely fails to produce something worthwhile.

I must admit however that I was disappointed you did not even mention citizen journalism. Not only does citizen journalism receive considerable treatment on YouTube, but it plays a pivotal part in the contemporary political sphere [Bruns 2008]. Your vague referrals to produsage and produsers don’t quite cut it for me when considering that a hefty amount of the political satire on YouTube (and elsewhere on the internet) comes from citizen journalists. Fellow KCB201 bloggers Brendan, Nat, and Kate all use YouTube examples to support their arguments on citizen journalism and politics. I recommend clicking the hyperlinks and checking them out!

I’m so glad Bangeman’s [2006] concern that YouTube’s rapid success after its introduction in 2005 wouldn’t last has so far proved to be unfounded. Of course this is probably due to the fact YouTube is now corporately supported since Google bought it out in 2006 [Bylund 2006; Sandoval 2006], but I’m not complaining: as long as YouTube produsers are able to upload, view, and respond to posts without restrictive limitations then I am content. Even if these users are politicians, I believe they have just as much right to promote themselves and their campaigns through YouTube. I don’t think this is exploiting YouTube as a medium for the people – it is still the peoples’ choice as to what they watch.

REFERENCES

Bangeman, E. 2006. YouTube's Future (or lack thereof).
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061003-7892.html (accessed May 12, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Ten Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-10-slidecast-citizen-journalism?src=embed (accessed May 9, 2008).

Bylund, A. 2006. Google Buys YouTube. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061009-7942.html?rel (accessed May 12, 2008).

Sandoval, G. 2006. Is YouTube a flash in the pan?. http://business2-cnet.com.com/Is+YouTube+a+flash+in+the+pan/2100-1025_3-6089886.html (accessed May 12, 2008).

We are the gatekeepers

Truth.

What is it? How do you define it? Does it even exist in the first place?

I believe truth is whatever you want it to be. It is what you make of it, as simple as what you yourself believe to be true. The real challenges lies in figuring out what we believe in. This is what I see as the outstanding benefit of citizen journalism.

Citizen journalism is not a new phenomenon. Predating even the photocopier and the printing press, it has risen in profile over the last decade thanks to new and emerging technologies, and more specifically; the internet [Bruns 2008]. Citizen journalists finally have a medium where there is an open inflow and outflow of information in which they can freely engage as produsers. The impartiality, neutrality, and non-discriminatory nature of the internet has also reinstated the democracy of media and encouraged us to shake free of traditional closed news processes [Jenkins 2008; Bruns 2008].

Citizen journalists are defined as average, ordinary people, without professional journalistic training, who are using new media technologies as tools to create and distribute material and content that is often alternative to main stream media representations [Glaser 2006; Bruns 2008]. The need for space to host and promote the prodused material of citizen journalists has pushed the global development of independent media centres and popularity of sites like Slashdot, PlasticsNews, Current_TV, OhmyNews, and even YouTube [Bruns 2008]. Much to the despair of professional journalists and traditional news producers [see Farmer 2006], this is clear evidence that humanity is craving a greater level of diversity and independence than media gateways are providing.

Bruns [2005; 2008] calls citizen journalists “gatewatchers”; describing the behaviour of citizen journalists as monitoring the output “gateways” of news publications, media outlets, and other information sources (including government and NGOs). It is from this watching that Bruns [2005; 2008] suggests information is drawn with the intention of re-evaluating, reinterpreting and/or re-contextualising it to produce new media and content that is alternative or corrective to the mainstream. However I believe many people engaging in citizen journalism today are surpassing their roles as gatewatchers, instead becoming gatekeepers.

Citizen journalists, or more specifically investigative journalists, are actively seeking new information, information not made available through traditional media gateways. Pursuits like that of Peter Joseph (see Zeitgeist) or Jeremy Scahill (see the shadow of citizen journalism) are opening new gateways to information otherwise kept under lock and key. The internet facilitates the open publishing of this information, allowing it to be communally evaluated, responded to, and built on in a palimpsestic process [Bruns 2008].

The best part about all of this? Anyone can pursue their own zeitgeist, with the knowledge that they will have the means of legitimately reporting their findings as a citizen journalist in a context in which they can be heard [Katz 1997; Bowman and Willis 2003]. We are in an incredibly privileged position to take charge of our own lives, and discuss and reflect on what is happening around us. We have the means to search for new information, and open new gateways whenever necessary.

We have a right to our opinion, and we have the right to be informed. We also have the right to choose. The right to choose between what we are told is true, and what we actually believe to be true. We hold the keys to make this choice. We are the gatekeepers.

REFERENCES

Bowman, S. and C. Willis. 2003. We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. In American Press Institute: The Media Centre, ed. J. D. Lasica. http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/weblog.php (accessed May 13, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2005. Chapter Two: Gatewatching. In Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production, A. Bruns, 11-30. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 69-100. New York: Peter Lang.

Farmer, J. 2006. Citizen Journalism Sucks. In The Age. http://blogs.theage.com.au/media/archives/2006/10/citizen_journal.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. New York: Oxford.

Glaser, M. 2006. Digging Deeper: Your Guide to Citizen Journalism. In PBS: Media Shift, M. Glaser. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/09/digging_deeperyour_guide_to_ci.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Katz, J. 1997. Birth of a Digital Nation. In Wired, Iss. 5.04. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.04/netizen.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Jenkins, H. 2007. Videoblogging, Citizen Journalism, and Credibility. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/videoblogging.html (accessed May 13, 2008).

Jenkins, H. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/ (accessed May 13, 2008).

The Shadow of Citizen Journalism

I wanted to post the following youtube video from The Nation's Jeremy Scahill, an investigative journalist. Scahill wrote the book Blackwater, which is about the rise of private security contracting in Iraq and the wider implications of this, and is widely considered to be an expert on private military companies.



One of the things I found intriguing about this post is the extensive amount of both praise and criticism it has received on youtube (at the time of posting it had received 9782 comments after being live for over a year - true not huge by youtube standards, but still worth noting).

One recent comment states:
"Oh look more biased youtube videos. YAY FOR FAKE JOURNALISM! Just because he wrote a book means he must know something right? We'll see, but don't always believe what you read."
While another replies:
"Fake Journalism? Do you even know who this guy is? His book, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" is VERY well cited. VERY WELL! Read it, and then comment on this author's work... The sources are excellent. He is very respected as an investigative journalist. And it isn't easy to find 100 sources, FYI. You don't just go looking on the internet, it would take a VERY long time to do."

For me this sort of thing encapsulates what citizen journalism is all about, and demonstrates exactly how online communities evaluate content and information (such as in this instance through commenting). I love that technologies like the internet have enabled us with the power to put our opinion out into the world, releasing it for others to pick up and toy with and do with what they will. The rise in citizen journalism gives me hope that the future of media will be a collective forum where everybody has the opportunity to openly evaluate and contribute, rather than a platform from which we are fed the majority views that often remain unchallenged.

I'm not arguing that we are passive recievers of media. I also understand that citizen journalism does have negative potential, such as a loss in quality (but then what is quality?!), particularly with the growing breadth of available information and content available to us. I know quantity does not always equal quality, but I am of the opinion that I would rather have access to a greater and more diverse range of information sources that I can evaluate myself, rather than have access to only a limited number of sources that have already been pre-evaluated for me. The second option might make life easier but it also makes it easier for your life to be controlled.

On the actual content of the clip, I'd heard of private contracting in the US for the war in Iraq but didn't realise that it is potentially this extensive. Ofcourse what I have heard has come from sources like Scahill, never the mass media. I loathe to think what sort of world we would live in should citizen journalists not exist! Hallelujah for alternatives! Hallelujah for choice! Hallelujah that not everybody takes things on face value or just because somebody says they are so!

INVITATION TO COMMENT PLEASE!

How Do Communities Evaluate Quality?

Citizen journalism is similar in nature to a peer assessment. Whereby, the quality of content is evaluated by individuals over time who then critique and build upon the existing information, in a snowball like effect. The more attention a post attracts (eg through comments or rating systems) the more credible and transparent a source becomes. It is through this peer assessment process that the reputation of a citizen journalist is built and the quality of the information produced is improved.

As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."

By Ella, Nat and Emma.

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.

Zeitgeist

In tutorials many of us have been watching videos that epitomise different unit concepts. This week a friend introduced me to a documentary called "Zeitgeist". This was a little coincidental as the word zeitgeist cropped up briefly in one of our Bruns (2008) readings as well as in the week 6 lecture. Along with equipotentiality I have another new word to add to my vocabulary! By definition the word zeitgeist stretches back to the German Romantics period and comes from the latin zeit, which means time, and geist, which means spirit (see Wikipedia). The literal translation can be taken to mean spirit of time but in a practical sense a zeitgeist is the prevailing moral, intellectual, and cultural climate of a given era (see Dictionary.com).

So not only did this film absolutely blow my mind, but it ties in with the notion of citizen journalism. Not that Peter Joseph, the creator of the film Zeitgeist, is a journalist in the traditional sense - in fact this is his first ever documentary film - but he is an actively concerned citizen putting his bit forward in contribution to this great global community. The film has received critical acclaim from independent critics and the online community since its online release in late June 2007, so much so that a sequel is being developed and due for release in October 2008 (for a preview of the sequel see here). The information might not be anything new to conspiracy theory junkies but it comprehensively presents the audience with information that you are never going to find in the mass media. Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist provides an independent and well documented report on of the distribution of power in society and the dissemination of truth.

Zeitgeist was created entirely not-for-profit, as an inspiration to people to look at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that things are not always as they same. Sure we might all laugh at the simplicity of don't believe everything you see/hear on television, but the reality of the matter is that many people do - even when they are adamant that everything they see/hear is taken with a grain of salt. Maybe we do this because it is easier or simpler to take what we are given as face value (I doubt I would be the first to admit that analysis and evaluation of all information I take on board in any given day requires enormous effort). Most of us also have a tendency to disbelieve things that contradict or challenge our current understanding or beliefs. Even on a good day I sometimes struggle to dig that little bit deeper and stretch my understanding, especially if the benefits of doing so are not explicitly apparent.

With that said do be careful and scrupulous when watching Zeitgeist because the information documented is subjective and the opinions presented are very definitive. However Joseph himself stated that "it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized" (see here). So before you write it off as a load of rubbish check out the extensive lengths that Joseph went to in research for the film, and remember sometimes it's good to challenge yourself. It's alot to take in in less than 2 hours but worth sitting through!

Basically so you have some idea about what you are getting yourself into Zeitgeist is segmented into 3 parts:

1. The Greatest Story Ever Told - on religion and "the Jesus myth"
2. All The World's A Stage - on 911 and what "really" happened
3. Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain - the conspiracy behind central banking

If you want more of a briefing on it before watching I suggest you have a read of what Wikipedia and/or the IMDb says about it, but both entries are quite short. You could also try the interviews with Peter Joseph on YouTube and/or the following WordPress blog posts: Peter Joseph's Movie Zeitgeist and Another Post On Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist.


To watch the actual movie please see:

On Google
OR
Zeitgeist The Movie - The Official Site

You can also read an interactive transcript of the first third of the film (with a promise that the following two thirds are being developed).


A whole new world awaits...


Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang, 37-100.