The Guardian voluntary sector network has an interesting provocative piece headlined How citizen journalism is setting the local agenda which goes on to say:
Hyper-local news, websites and blogs are inextricably linked to cohesion and engagement within communities.
Adding in a caption:
Many local bloggers and writers may not recognise themselves as citizen journalists, but they are telling their story and connecting local people.
The first point is supported by the Networked Neighbourhoods research by Hugh Flouch and Kevin Harris, though not cited in the piece.
Mandeep Hothi, also writing recently for the Guardian, has a nuanced view – as I’m sure do Kevin and Hugh – about the role of social media in communities. Mandeep wrote:
Our experience suggests that social media is not the shortcut to higher participation that we all hoped it might be. On the websites and social networks we helped residents set up, the numbers of people who are engaging in conversation with each other is quite small. It varies amongst sites, but the highest is around 10% of network members.
If you read both studies, they show how complex is the role of new media in the local communication ecosystem, that’s made up of many informal and formal relationships, enhanced or disrupted by the effort of newspapers, radio, TV, blogs, websites, Twitter etc
… which is why I bridled got cross about the Guardian piece’s second point, which implies that local online writers and bloggers should be branded (whether they like it or not) as citizen journalists. Some may like the label, other may feel that “journalist” is not currently a term that engenders a lot of trust among citizens, however unfair that may be to the majority that do an honest job.
The Guardian piece is written by Gavin Sheppard, marketing director at the Media Trust, who are running Newsnet, supported by the Big Lottery Fund as part of People Powered Change. I’ve written lots before about Newsnet and its role in networking civil society, including an early challenge on How helpful is journalism for People Powered Change?
After citing the excellent work of the Preston blog in a campaign, Gavin writes:
The Poynter Street residents, like many communities across the country, may not recognise themselves as citizen journalists, but they are telling their local story, connecting with others and harnessing support for local people. They are reflecting many of the qualities of citizen journalism. This dedication to the local community deserves to be nurtured and supported and can benefit from learning, connecting and sharing with others.
My challenge is on two fronts. First, that while mainstream journalism is essential for democracy, challenging powerful institutions, bravely reporting from wars and disasters … and keeping us amused … the news values of conflict, crisis, celebrity aren’t necessarily helpful to collaboration and community building, which is important in civic life. Thanks to Nick Booth of Podnosh for highlighting this a few years back.
So while it is hugely important that some bloggers, like those in Preston, take on – and sometimes improve on – the reducing role of local papers in running campaigns and holding councils to account, “journalism” is only a part of the community media that we need.
Some bloggers and users of social media in local communities want to call themselves citizen journalists, and hopefully take on the best aspects of journalism in being inquisitive on behalf of others, and “speaking truth to power”. Fine …. but to what code do they operate in the way that they report? And are they just a loud voice in the community … the equivalent of those who can dominate public meetings? Some are hugely ethical, collaborative, supportive of others … some less so. As journalists they don’t necessarily “connect local people”: that’s more of a role for community organisers and builders.
We need a discussion around citizen journalism in parallel with that about mainstream journalism. We know mainstream journalism has to be, in part, about making money for the proprietors, balanced with a societal role. What are the equivalent tensions in citizen journalism?
At the same time, the majority of those using social media in an enormous variety of ways for social impact do not choose to call themselves “journalists”. I explored this wide use of social technology with co-authors Amy Sample Ward and Andy Gibson in the NESTA-funded publication Social by Social a couple of years ago.
So my second point is that trying to brand citizen media as citizen journalists is unhelpful. If people “may not recognise themselves as citizen journalists” it’s not for the Media Trust to say that they are.
I think that Newsnet – which is funded £1.89 million by those of us who buy lottery tickets – could both play an important role in this discussion, and help amplify the work of those using community media. Adam Perry is indeed blogging about that on Newsnet.
If Newsnet is going to stick to supporting “journalism” then we need some other ways to connect and amplify the use of social media for local social good … as I rambled on about here: The challenge of networking civil society.
Although Newsnet was funded by BIG last year, and “launched” five weeks ago, it has yet to carry any news: their “single publishing interface” is still promised (see comments). The site is currently simple a set of blogs and forums within the Media Trust site (see discussion).
So yes, let’s applaud the best of citizen journalism, but not put easy branding above some very complex substance.
Disclosure: I worked for Big Lottery Fund last year exploring their role as more than a funder.
Note to self: there’s another potential client gone. That’s the problem with being a social reporter … the critical journalist in me keeps breaking out.
Home
6 Comments
Hi David,
I think your piece misses the point entirely! The point I am making in my piece for the Guardian is that there is a rich diversity of community media – no matter what you choose to call it.
This piece was specifically about the relationship between a diminishing local media and the rise of citizen journalism, but that’s not to say that “news values” are an essential element in all community media, far from it. What matters is that the content produced – whatever the medium – is interesting and relevant to its intended audience. And in our experience many of the people who are actually doing this stuff and not just talking about it don’t see the need to define it.
For newsnet specifically, we’ve been consistently clear that our intention is to support community and local media of all kinds, journalistic in essence or not. In doing so we’ve struggled with the same terminology issues as everyone else. Community reporting, citizen journalism, hyper-local, community media: call it what you like. It’s the content and the people behind it that matter and that’s what we’re most interested in supporting.
Gavin
Thanks Gavin for engaging on this, and I agree absolutely with the substance of what you are saying here.
However, your piece was headlined “How citizen journalism is setting the local agenda” … not “How citizen-led media is supporting community building …” or whatever.
And by writing “Many local bloggers and writers may not recognise themselves as citizen journalists, but they are telling their story and connecting local people.” you appear to assert journalism as the primary story-telling and connecting approach to which others should aspire. It shouldn’t be.
Newsnet is still defined – as far as I can see – by a mission to support citizen journalism, and channel that to mainstream. It offers no way to support citizen media. The How-tos are journalism-oriented.
There is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong in supporting citizen journalism. It is an important part of the mix – but it should be recognised as a minor, not major, part of the sort of community-based media we need for resilient communities. It isn’t the most useful label for what’s needed. It is only “setting the local agenda” in small part.
I know this may seem an easy shot while you are still in development, but the fact that it is impossible for me to create my own blog post or start a top level forum on Newsnet to discuss this does not suggest a citizen/member led approach. If Newsnet supports the idea of citizen/user led content, give us the space to create some, or at least start to take feeds from other blogs. Otherwise you are just in the old-style top-down media channel business.
Gavin – your first paragraph ends with the sentence: ‘It’s inspirational to hear about individuals in the UK using citizen journalism to create positive change at home’ which suggests that David’s interpretation is quite reasonable. That’s what the article seems to be about.
Then David wrote ‘‘If Newsnet supports the idea of citizen/user led content, give us the space to create some, or at least start to take feeds from other blogs. Otherwise you are just in the old-style top-down media channel business.’’
Indeed, but to support user led content does not require £1.89m of public money; whereas being an old-style top-down media channel business probably does. There’s a fundamental contradiction there, which needs explaining if we are not to hear more and more comments about emperors without clothes.
Skirmishes over the key language used in fields of practice are often crucial and sometimes bloody. It is not surprising if people who practice a bottom-up approach are suspicious when top-down templating approaches appear to capture and re-shape language to justify what they do.
Personally I think we are at the very beginning of something and need to be on the lookout for the next means of informal collaboration that social media affords; not least because few of us have much idea yet of what widespread people-powered change will really look like – if we continue to allow the disintegration of and disregard for local democracy, it could be chaos.
Cheerily celebrating isolated examples of successful local action stimulated through social media are all very well, but we need to understand how consistent collective engagement online, blending with face to face at neighbourhood level, will have an impact on everyday democracy. That’s the direction to be looking in.
My interpretation of Kevin and David’s point is that it stresses that bottom-up collaboration is key in developing sustainable neighbourhoods and communities. Social Media allows this communication to take place and allows development of content that is genuinely from local people. The danger is that we end up creating journalists who report ON communities rather than local people telling their own stories in the way they want to.That’s why I have a problem with the word “journalist” which to me implies an observer telling others about an event. The aim of our programme is not to get the stories from our Community Reporters onto the BBC or other media channels, but to develop content that makes people to feel proud of the place that they live in and to use the content to develop innovative solutions to problems. If Newsnet is simple about supporting people to become local journalists, I don’t see what the point is. There has to be an added value to the programme to make it more than just news.
Interesting blog David.
Some bloggers and users of social media in local communities want to call themselves citizen journalists, and hopefully take on the best aspects of journalism in being inquisitive on behalf of others, and “speaking truth to power”. Fine …. but to what code do they operate in the way that they report? And are they just a loud voice in the community … the equivalent of those who can dominate public meetings? Some are hugely ethical, collaborative, supportive of others … some less so. As journalists they don’t necessarily “connect local people”: that’s more of a role for community organisers and builders.
I see my role as a community media organiser, in part, as a community organiser and community builder. A large part of that is encouraging our community journalists (the phrase we use) to NOT ONLY be inquisitive, speak truth to power, hold power to account and all of that, but also to be collaborative, ethical, supportive of others. If we run an interview with the older woman organising the lunch club or the teenage DJ organising the youth discos or whatever, that is journalism. If we run a lifestyle feature about healthier eating, that is journalism. If we run a puff piece about the local school’s outstanding OFSTED inspection, or If we run a light-hearted throwaway lifestyle feature about fish pedicures, that is journalism. Same goes for multimedia documentary film making, podcast broadcasts or whatever else, it’s journalism whether you use the word or not.
I despair of the idea that unless you are picking apart council minutes to find the loophole in their budget plans for their adult social care, then it’s not ‘proper’ journalism. That’s an incredibly reductive definition. Just as professional journalists can be news reporters, lifestyle journalists, arts reviewers, interviewers or whatever, so can community journalists.
“We need a discussion around citizen journalism in parallel with that about mainstream journalism. We know mainstream journalism has to be, in part, about making money for the proprietors, balanced with a societal role. What are the equivalent tensions in citizen journalism?”
We should all feel similar pressures. The drive to keep the commercial proprietor happy is essentially about the desire to attract audiences, give them what they want (within the limits of what you can provide), engage them, entertain them and, hopefully, utlimately inspire them to go out and do something. Exact same applies to the smallest hyperlocal blog. If you’re not providing what you’re community want to read, see or hear, you’re not doing it properly.
One other response I’d make is to Gary (hiya mate) – where he says
“I have a problem with the word “journalist” which to me implies an observer telling others about an event.”
Yes, and that is often a good thing PROVIDING the observer is part of the community on which he/she is reporting. Of course there is a place for first person accounts and direct platforms, but media content (of any type) is often much more accessible and credible when it is filtered through an observer. It’s difficult to read (watch, listen, whatever) to someone talking about how wonderful they are and all the great things they do – and indeed very few people have the conceit and confidence to do that. Much easier to write about the great things being done by this great person who lives down the street.
Ultimately, like Gavin, I don’t think the terminology matters much. But I do think the importance of journalistic skills to hyperlocal media can easily be overlooked, and indeed too often *is* overlooked.
Sorry for rambling… hope it’s of interest.
I’ve just posted a piece on the Media Trust site: The future of Newsnet – a gentle provocation