The Citizen Journalism Debate

Something to keep an eye on...

The National Union of Journalists in Britain and Ireland (NUJ) has announced a code of practice to address important issues raised by the "phenomenon of citizen journalism". The new Code comes a day after a round-table debate on citizen journalism and its implications for the profession.

Discussion revolved around questions such as, is citizen journalism a passing fad or will it change the nature of journalism forever? How can we encourage greater participation in the media while maintaining professional standards? Is citizen journalism just a cheap way to fill papers or programmes, or an opening up of the media? What are the opportunities and the dangers?

The Code addresses these issues and sets down ways in which organisations and individuals can maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in the new media environment. It covers concerns about accuracy and checking sources, payment to contributors, copyright and moral and legal rights.

The Guardian/NUJ debate teased out all these important issues and was attended by leading industry figures and representatives of the blogging community on the citizen journalism phenomenon.

I'm happy to see people talking about these issues. I'm wondering how (and when) the debate will transpire in the US...

Simon Waldman of The Guardian stressed that citizen journalism would happen regardless of whether anyone round the table thought it was a good idea or not.

He welcomed the opportunities it gave people to be creative and to enter the profession, but added: “My greatest fear is that you are creating a culture of invasion of privacy for profit. I like the idea of people engaging with media, if people see something they should tell other people about it. But I don’t like idea that people can’t walk down street without having a cameraphone shoved in their face.”

From my, admittedly cynical, viewpoint, American journalism has already created a "culture of invasion of privacy for profit". What else can you call the National Enquirer, People Magazine, or those hideous interviews with the families of Katrina victims or the trapped Virginia miners? Ick!

Depending where you are in our "if it bleeds it leads" society, people can't walk down the street now without having a camera or microphone stuck in their faces by the so-called "professional" journalists. Maybe the "citizen" journalists will have more sense.

I read the articles on the debate because I subscribe to several LockerGnome channels. There was a short blurb in Lockergnome's Web Developers channel entitled "The Pros and Cons of Paying for Citizen Content", by Matt Hartley's. I thought Matt's leading comment was intriguing:

First of all, I believe that if someone is paying for content, the source should be trusted. You know, like in your local newspaper. We also must not forget that in many cases, the ‘truth’ is a way of looking at a particular situation. Just my thinking…

I agree with him on the subject of truth. On the other hand, I'm not so sure how far I trust my local newspaper (whether or not I pay for it). I don't see why I should trust something just because it's been printed and distributed to thousands of people (paid or free).

Why should payment somehow make something more truthful? Why should I believe that, because a person is employed by a newspaper, that person can be believed more readily than any other citizen?

The fact that someone is (or is not) employed by a newspaper, a magazine, or any "old media" organization, does not make that person any more or less reliable, any more or less a "journalist", any more or less a professional, or any more or less to be trusted.

I'm interested to see what happens with the future of "citizen journalism". The genie is out of the bottle.