Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 657

Warning: file_get_contents(http://grant-adamson.me.uk/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/admin/inc/webfonts.json) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 657

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 678
Categories

Wordblog revived

incorporating New Life

I'm sticking with 'citizen journalism'

Jeff Jarvis, the “bloggers’ blogger” as Roy Greenslade calls him in at Guardian Unlimited, is recanting his use of the term “citizen journalism”.

“I think,” Jarvis writes, “a better term for what I’ve been calling “citizen journalism” might be “networked journalism.” He goes on to explain:

“Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product.

I carry some of the blame for pushing “citizens’ media” and “citizen journalism” as terms to describe the phenomenon we are witnessing in this new era of news.

He says he was never satisfied with the term.

There is good reason to be dissatisfied. When you put two words which are difficult, if not impossible, to define you end up with something even more imprecise. I have never been able to arrive at a better definition of journalism than, “you know it when you see it”. Citizen is nearly as difficult and on any definition excludes millions of displaced people and economic migrants around the world.

The problem is trying to describe something which ranges from bar stool rants to considered, even academic, discussion of deep issues. In between we have rumour, conspiracy theories and downright lies.

I have long considered that mediation, the process of group decision-making and editing, is a crucial element of journalism as we have come to know it. That is largely missing from what we have been calling “citizen journalism”. It promotes the rumour exchanged in the supermarket queue to journalism.

So my argument is more with the use of the term “journalism” than with “citizen” although both have their problems.

Jarvis’s alternative, “networked journalism” is even worse. Journalism has always depended on networks, networks of sources and people prepared to publish. Journalism cannot exist without networks whether they be in cyberspace or the physical world. To appropriate the word in this way is entirely wrong.

In a rather vague way we have come to know what is meant by “citizen journalism”. There is no good reason to abandon it, certainly not for something far worse.

About

View all posts by

POST A COMMENT


No Responses

  1. Kristine Lowe: Networked journalism vs. Citizen journalism says

    […] Jeff Jarvis suggests we replace the term “citizen journalism” with “networked journalism”: “Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product.” The way he strings together those words almost makes me agree just on the basis of the beauty of the statement. However, Andrew Grant-Adamson, a former lecturer of mine at City University disagrees strongly. In “I’m sticking with citizen journalism” he writes: “Journalism has always depended on networks, networks of sources and people prepared to publish. Journalism cannot exist without networks whether they be in cyberspace or the physical world. To appropriate the word in this way is entirely wrong.” Hmm.. I can’t seem to make up my mind, but find the discussion intriguing. […]

  2. Wordblog » Blog Archive » So what should we call “citizen journalism” says

    […] I’m sticking with ‘citizen journalism’ […]

  3. Jeff Jarvis says

    I agree that journalism has always been a product of networks. I don’t think the professionals always wanted to concede that. But you’re right.
    But I don’t think I’m trying to “appropriate” the word.
    Instead, I’m saying that the networks are widening. They now include the amateurs, the citizens, the witnesses now empowered with the means of sharing, the sources who can publish on their own, and even competitors through the power and efficiency of the link.
    I know that I seemed to be trying to replace one — citizen journalism — with the other — networked journalism. I wasn’t so much replacing as shifting. So I’m still left with the problem of what to call the non-pros. Citizens? But aren’t we all. Amateurs? But increasingly, some make money. I think this will or should blur to the point that there is not a distinction in the network. And the larger the network, the better for journalism and for an informed society, eh?