Phoenix Reflections

Today, the argument about what makes the news has transcended to a level of WHO makes the news. A struggling reporter for whom, earlier it would be a near impossible feat to get a byline and would have to slog hours to reach a respectable position can now conveniently publish all material sans an organization. All media forums and new media are embracing what are called 'citizen journalists' with open arms, harnessing the advantages of the burgeoning citizen journalism phenomenon. The Internet with its infinite space and storage provides platforms like blogs, YouTube, networking sites to upload almost anything and everything. Most often than not, used and misused, but nevertheless this is one of the most popular way to be heard!

Citizen Journalism also called participatory journalism, as the dictionary states, gives citizens the responsibility of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information. While views and reviews on stories always formed a part of news content across various traditional media outlets in the past, now they are being professionally incorporated into news items and also form leads to new stories. Hard core news sites like CNN have introduced their own initiative of Citizen Journalism with ireport, a network that allows anyone to upload and discuss news focused content. Editor's gatekeep all content and around 10% of all submissions get published. But is this journalism? What about all the ethical baggage that comes along with a profession?

I was there
7/7/2005. Central London was struck by suicide bombers and the underground railway system was ripped, killing around 52 people and injuring many more. Life came to a standstill with that event and then began a series of investigations and accusations. However all footage of the event, at least the one shown by news channels would be from several moments after the horrific event. Until of course they knew a bomber was about to strike! However in this rat race of 'breaking news' and who cover the entire story first with EXCLUSIVE footage is where citizen journalism gains prime importance. At this point of time news channels opened up all channels to acquire any material from onlookers to support their coverage. BBC news watchers who witnessed the entire event grabbed this opportunity and photographed the entire debacle and realizing the dire need of the hour immediately sent it across to the BBC news team. The photographs were uploaded on the site the very next day. The audience should know the capacity of the destruction that occurred but as a citizen does one have the right to capitalize on others misfortunes?

I was a part of it
While millions watched on TV the aftermath of a mentally troubled student's open fire on the campus of Virginia Tech University, there were many who witnessed the nightmare and lived to recount it on various news portals. All online news sites and blogs opened their lines to discussion and eyewitness counts to enhance the interactivity with the audience and gain an in-depth analysis of the matter. There is no doubt that the stronger voice of the audience is having a beneficial effect on the range of stories and perspectives that journalists cover. But do such discussion forums lead to unearthing more dirt than being beneficial?

Closer to home
This year's biggest news ever in the UAE was supported by a reader's picture that was pasted on the front page of all leading newspapers. The massive pile-up on the dreadful Tuesday of March 11th, dubbed as the biggest car accident in the UAE was caught on tape and photographed on camera phones by those in the vicinity. Perhaps all the facts and figures that newspaper articles depicted were from personal recounts and photographs. The 8 column photograph that ran in all newspapers, with the cars on fire was sent by a reader who happened to take a shot that explicitly explained the magnitude of the catastrophe. Because media cannot be everywhere, newspapers need to rely on citizens for additional scoop on events. This news was fodder for video enthusiasts who made it to the scene to shoot the destruction and upload it on YouTube. Personally I wouldn’t view such a video and replay horrific images, which need to be forgotten rather than make gruesome hair rising content. With such freedom bestowed upon a civilian who derives satisfaction only from the fact that someone is viewing 'his work', boasting about the number of hits his content received; are we shrugging off the responsibilities that the traditional school of journalism has at its core?

Each of those stories would not have been possible, certainly with the speed with which they were produced, without the new technologies that allow intense interaction between journalist and audience. But it is in the area of the contested news agenda and opinions about the news agenda in which public participation raises the most interesting dilemma. The average citizen can now make news, act that was once only the province of seasoned journalists. At the same time the rigors and ethics involved in the act of reporting are being ignored in this new wave of journalism. Privacy is now a thing of the past and people's emotions are being played with. You cannot expect a civilian to understand, that grief while reporting a sensitive issue has to be minimal for, the aim is to inform not create a furor. Perhaps user generated content is the need of the hour, but at the same time media education to such individuals, who contribute such content, is imperative. However calling it journalism is a farfetched ideology. If all citizens could report, it would defeat the very foundation of a profession. As long as new media survives, user content will help reinvent and develop powerful content for online news, information and entertainment. But journalist….he is not!