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!

An argument for putting produsage in the dictionary

After reading the first installment of Henry Jenkin’s interview with Axel Bruns I believe I have finally gotten my head around the concept of produsage. More importantly however I now understand why it is useful to have a term that encapsulates a wealth of concepts that essentially embody the same (or very similar) ideas. Let me try and share some of this understanding.

We are witnessing the dawning of a new age, where produsage is being born. Yet many of us remain obliviously ignorant. It amazes me that people still cling avidly to traditional business and communication models when there is such a dominant consensus that humanity is moving beyond the previously separate forms of producer, distributor, and user/receiver/consumer [Flew 2005; Bruns 2007]. The emergence and adoption of technologies like open source software (see also OSI) and Web 2.0 are enabling each of us to realise our potential as involved, interactive, and intelligent participatory beings [Jenkins 2002; Bruns 2008]. Slowly, we are becoming consciously aware of our new reality.

In short, for those of you who don’t know (or have never heard of) what produsage is, it is an umbrella term coined by Axel Bruns that describes the overarching new trend of user-led content creation/production. Common examples of produsage include wikis (particularly Wikipedia), open source software (like FireFox and Linux), citizen journalism, and online gaming communities (see Second Life and/or The Sims and/or W.O.W). Produsage.org defines produsage as the act of produsers (a hybrid of the words production and user), and has identified four key principles that are prevalent in all produsage environments:

• open participation and communal evaluation
• fluid heterarchy and ad-hoc meritocracy
• unfinished artifacts and continuing processes
• common property and individual rewards

For greater depth and exploration of these principles please see Produsage.org or Bruns’s companion book Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.

Jenkins [2008] has described the term produsage as “somewhat awkward” while others (myself previously included) have wondered whether it is just another industry related buzz word that will fizzle into nothing. Either way this lack in eloquence does not diminish the need for an alternative way to express the resurgence of commons-based approaches to production and use that is occurring [Bruns 2007; Produsage.org]. Perhaps it is this awkwardness, or because we are slow in adapting to change, that produsage (the word) has not (yet) taken off. This semester I have been increasingly convinced that “produsage” and “produser” have in fact earned their place our dictionaries, and our vocabularies.

Oxymoronically the shift in the information age towards digitisation, convergence, and participatory culture (reflected most significantly in the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0) has been gradual [Bruns 2008; Jenkins 2008]. Lacking a revolutionary upheaval, we have tried to fit these changes and new developments into our pre-existing conceptual frameworks [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005; Bruns 2008]. Unfortunately this practice is largely counterproductive, particularly in an era where innovation is a necessary part of the evolutionary process [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005]. Bruns [2008] insists that “if we continue to use the old models, the old language to describe the new, we lose a level of definition and clarity which can ultimately lead us to misunderstand our new reality”.

Although many of us may not even realise we are taking part in produsage, we all (well, those of us comfortably sitting on this side of the digital divide anyway) have the potential to do so. It is our willingness to share content and intellectual property that makes this “iterative, ongoing, evolutionary process” of produsage work [Bruns 2008]. Our ability to remix, repurpose, and recontextualise available information, as well as contribute our own, is the real power behind the palimpsest of knowledge that is the World Wide Web [Bruns 2008].

Bruns [2008] imparts that “it doesn’t matter so much what we call it in the end, but a term like ‘produsage’ provides a blank slate which we can collectively inscribe with new meanings, new shared understandings of the environments we now find ourselves in”. If understanding our world and the environment in which we operate is generally considered a crucial component in securing a future that we can be optimistic about then I say let’s take the term produsage and run with it. What better time to expand our understanding than now?

Other Bloggers with insightful posts on this topic:

Bre

Brendan

Cassie

Daniel K

Daniel Y

Emma S

Kate

Kato

Lucy

Please also see my COMMENT in response to Megallagher's blog

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2007. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage. http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed April 25, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008. Chapter One: Introduction. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 1-7. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Eight Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-8-slidecast-produsage?src=embed (accessed April 25, 2008).

Dwyer, J. 2005. Communication Foundations. In Communication in Business: Strategies and Skills, 3^rd ed., J. Dwyer, 3-97. Sydney: Pearson.

Flew, T. 2005. Creative Industries. In New Media: An Introduction, 2^nd ed., T. Flew, 115-138. Melbourne: Oxford.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive audiences. In The New Media Book, D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.

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 11, 2008).

Produsage.org. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Research into User-Led Content Creation. http://produsage.org/ (accessed May 11, 2008).

Venturelli, S. 2005. Culture and the Creative Economy in the Information Age. In Creative Industries, ed. J. Hartley, 391-398. Oxford: Blackwell.

COMMENT in response to Megallagher's Blog

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Megallagher entitled Produsage, Generation 'C', and the PR powers that be, that was published to her blog on Thursday, May 1, 2008:

Meg, I admit I was initially drawn to your blog because you are studying the same degree as me and we are both majoring in public relations! I also have a passion for drama, play netball, and love travelling! It’s always nice to find a kindred spirit online.

After reading your post on Produsage, Generation ‘C’ and the PR powers that be I have to say that your concise statement of the difference between produsers and producers is the best explanation I have read to date. It will be taken out of context by reiterating it here but I can’t help it:

“Simply put, producers have a finished product with a tangible name on it, produsers have a developing product which is transient.”

Axel Bruns could not have said it better himself. From this moment of brilliance I am loathe to disparage anything! However I have some minor criticism to make that I will leave for you to decide whether or not to you will take them on board.

Firstly your post would benefit enormously if you hyperlink relevant text. This is a very simple measure, and makes it easier for readers wanting to access the same information as you, or pursue a better understanding of a particular term or concept with the effortless click of a button [Problogger.net]. Here for example you could have linked Bruns to his site Produsage.org, and the pages relating to the key principles of produsage, and produsage as a working definition. The same could have been done for Trendwatching.com.

Secondly I would have loved to have heard your own opinion on produsage a little more. Your post is an excellent summary of produsage from the perspective of Axel Bruns, but does not fully engage with the content. Perhaps with wider reading you could have developed your own argument, as well as integrating your PR focus throughout the post, instead of tacking it on to your conclusion. I suggest any of the work by Yochai Benkler (specifically The Wealth of Networks), Michel Bauwens (see the P2P Foundation), and Henry Jenkins (who were all mentioned in the Week 8 podcast) as well as Charles Leadbeater (particularly Living on Thin Air), Simon Cottle’s News, Public Relations and Power, and the rest of Terry Flew’s book New Media.

Finally, if you are interested in how the changing media landscape is affecting the PR industry I suggest you spend some time exploring PRinfluences.com and/or odwyerpr.com. I have also found the following useful:

Search Engine Lowdown: the search industry queries new media

Top Rank Online Marketing: Online Marketing Blog

Clikz: Creative New Media PR 101

These sources may help you find more relevant and PR specific examples for your blog, as well as expand your knowledge base to give your argument greater complexity.

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.

COMMENT in response to Brendam's Blog

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Brendan Yates entitled Online communities, and the offline hype, that he published to his blog on Thursday, May 1, 2008:

Brendan, while I found your post online communities and the offline hype reasonably well-informed and engaging to read, you made some remarks that I was compelled to comment on.

You question the validity of virtual links and whether these relationships are actual relationships. I believe that virtual links are valid and that the relationships established in online communities are no less “real” than those occurring offline. While there may be a greater capacity for deception online [Sclove 1995; Bruns 2008], this should not detract from the significance and value of relationships built online, especially those built from mutual respect and honesty. While Flew [2005] is a very credible source, your post would have benefited from a wider reading into what elements are conducive to forming a prosperous community. I would suggest Peck’s The Different Drum [1987] and Rheingold’s The Virtual Community [2000]. You may also find my post shaking the stigma stuck to life online relevant.

I also seriously disagree with your statement that “by using the internet to expose ourselves social, we are really hiding behind the digital projection of ourselves, and can end up shutting out real-world physical relationships”. I am not contesting the inability of online relationships to embody a physical connection, or suggesting online communities should usurp offline relationships. However using the internet as a communication tool and medium for social interaction does not mutually exclude what you call “real-world” relationships (for a well reasoned discussion on this see Wellman and Gulia’s article Virtual Communities as Communities).

What is wrong with a person who finds the most enjoyment in life from playing xbox live or second life (see my post why we fear the influences of electronic games), or uploading videos onto YouTube (see my post a revelation of the “real” value in YouTube), or simply hanging out in internet chat rooms? How are these activities any different from (or lesser than) the activities we participate in offline? In online environments there is a much greater scope to explore who we are as people, and find our niche in the pursuit of acceptance and self-satisfaction [Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. While online communities might not be a “cure” for our social inadequacies they are certainly not “corrupting to people’s lives”. Perhaps read Smith and Kollock’s Communities in Cyberspace [1999], or reread Flew [2005] if you are still wondering on this matter.

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-6-slidecast-online-communities?src=embed (accessed April 10, 2008).

Cobcroft, R. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Lecture. Public Lecture, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. April 10, 2008.

Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures. In New Media: An Introduction, by T. Flew, 61-82. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Peck, M. S. 1987. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. 2^nd ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Sclove, R. 1995. Technology and Democracy. New York: Guilford.

Smith, M. A. and P. Kollock. eds. 1999. Communities in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Wellman, B. and M. Gulia. 1999. Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers don’t Ride Alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 167-194. New York: Routledge.

PLEASE NOTE

Due to technical difficulties this comment was unable to be posted directly to Brendam’s Blog and the post online communities and the offline hype. As an alternative I emailed this comment to Brendan for his reference.

The power to change

After listening over the KCB201 Week 6 podcast again in preparation for blogging and our Virtual Cultures assessment, I picked up on the significance of Axel's conclusion to his speil on online communities. It goes something like this:

The true power of community is that if there are enough people that come together who agree on certain things, and agree that certain changes need to be made, then they have the power to change our environment.

I simply wanted to post something about it because something about that statement really hit home with me.

Maybe I'm just being sentimental, but the way I see it is this:

If we can crawl out of the dark pessimistic holes that so many of us are hiding in, and actually do something about the things in this world that need to change, then together we can build a brighter future!

I'm going to continue my love affair with YouTube by posting a video from crossmack who shares my enthusiam about this topic.



Unfortunately he is suffering from from the same dilemma as me - where do I go from here? If you need some inspiration, this is a good place to start.



Viva La Revolution!