Citizen Journalism should not be overlooked

In 2008 after Mayhill Fowler exposed an inappropriate statement made by soon-to-be president Obama, many questioned her support for the presidential candidate. According to an LA times article, “‘CitizenJournalist’ broke Obama story,” Fowler gave almost $2,300 to the Obama campaign, and while she still considered herself an Obama supporter she felt compelled to share his statements with the public.

The concept of citizen journalism may be criticized by some and as a journalism major I can’t help but feel slightly bitter about someone with no training performing successful reporting. However, I do feel the development of citizen journalism will benefit the public at large. In the Fowler example, the event where Obama made his statement was closed to the press, had Fowler been attached to a news outlet it is extremely rare that she would have witnessed what Obama had said and therefore not have the story.

Citizen journalism has been able to become so widespread because of the use of the Internet and social media. A citizen can put a video on YouTube or pose a picture on twitter and it can instantly become viral. This is a more basic form of citizen journalism than Fowler, considering she was able to produce an entire story and have it published on the Huffington Post. But, no matter what medium the news from citizen sources has made coverage of public figures almost nonstop.

The LA times article quoted USC journalism professor Larry Pryor who said, “"We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear…you have to assume that everything is on the record. There's no getting around that anymore."

Some may question whether or not news from citizen journalists can be trusted however, as I discussed in a previous blog post, transparency is now becoming key to effective reporting. As long as a citizen journalist is truthful in their reporting and open about where they are coming from and how they received the information, I don’t think it should be much of a problem.

Although, Fowler was criticized by the fact that she was not “a true Obama supporter.” I feel she should be commended for her reporting. She was able to put her personal feelings aside and instead of covering up for a politician she admired she chose to share the truth regarding his opinions on small-town America. As a citizen journalist Fowler acted in the way traditional journalists should when given the opportunity to expose the truth.

Transparency and its growing importance

When I took journalism 101, one of the first lessons I learned was the importance of objectivity in journalistic writing. As I took more classes however, I began to learn about the growing prominence of transparency in journalism.

Blogger David Weinberger discussed in one of his posts how “transparency is the new objectivity.” While some believe you can’t trust journalists who display their opinion, Weinberger feels the complete opposite.

He said, “Transparency gives the reader information by which she can undo some of the unintended effects of the ever-present biases. Transparency brings us to reliability the way objectivity used to.”

After learning about the idea of transparency I can’t help but agree with Weinberger. It is impossible for a person to have absolutely no opinion on a subject. Particularly, in regards to politics I feel it is almost pointless for a journalist to try to appear as objective.

While much of the public does know which news outlets are conservative and which are liberal, journalists still typically construct their content in a way to make it appear that they are being “objective.”

Some proponents of objectivity may say if a journalist is only presenting the facts then the reader can be left to come to their own opinion on the subject. In this case I would say it is rare for an article to be 100 percent bias free. Even if the journalist did not intend for their bias to be displayed it could come through in an underlying way.

If a journalist were up front about his/her political views (or any opinions that could impact their writing) they would allow the reader to gain an understanding of where the news is coming from. The reader would still become well informed on the news and at the same time be able to evaluate certain aspects of the article more clearly.

Also if a reader felt so inclined, they could search for news coming from a journalist who has different views than the journalist of the original piece they read. By understanding biases and gaining news from journalists with different outlooks, I believe that the reader would be able to truly understand what the news is and really grasp how he feels about a certain issue.

Another important aspect of transparency that Weinberger discusses is how the Internet has impacted journalists’ transparent writing. Online journalists can easily link to where they got certain information. This allows readers to evaluate the source for themselves and not solely rely on the journalist.

As a more conversational relationship develops between journalists and their audience, with things such as comment sections online and journalists reaching out for sourcing tips, I feel it will become more and more important for journalists to be transparent in their writing. 

The sale of the Huffington Post and the reaction of contributing bloggers

The decision Arianna Huffington made to sell her online publication to AOL, for $315 million, was very controversial. Right after the announcement the Guardian was quick to inform readers why Huffington Post bloggers were accusing her of being a “sell-out.”

The main reason bloggers were outraged by the AOL deal is because they were providing content to the Huffington Post and were unpaid. Although I feel these bloggers deserve some sort of compensation it is most likely easier said than done. Determining how much they should be compensated for each blogger for the previous 6 years would be challenging.

At the end of the day, the bloggers agreed to have their work published without receiving any pay. It is unfortunate that the Huffington Post ended up being sold to a major corporation, but at the time each blogger made their contributions they must have had some reasoning behind it. They also must have believed in the publication itself and wanted to see it succeed.

In my opinion the reason beyond many bloggers goes beyond not being compensated for their work. Many bloggers were contributing to the publication because of Huffington’s political ambitions. The Guardian article discusses the fact that “AOL’s corporate ownership would see it tone down the site’s liberal campaigning.” Once the political message of this site was threatened bloggers questioned what and whom they have been providing free content for.

A Lehigh University journalism professor is quoted saying, “She has made a fortune on the back of freelance writers working for nothing, but there is a political betrayal too. She betrayed the ideals of a lot of people who were happy to work for nothing because they thought it was for a cause."

Huffington claimed she never intended for the site to be solely political. Although many disagreed with this claim and viewed it as “a deliberate rewriting of the past,” there is no way the Huffington Post would be nearly as successful as it is now if it had only been a political site. 

While I can imagine this buy out being very frustrating for unpaid bloggers, at the same time I feel that the sale of the Huffinton Post was not extremely unexpected. While this is a news outlet made by Huffington it is also a business venture she made as well. Huffington was clearly interested in making a large profit off of this business venture.

Again I am not agreeing that these bloggers should remain uncompensated for their work, however, I think bloggers should keep in mind that they were willing to take a risk in providing the Huffington Post with free content. 

A Shield Law: Can it pass and will it work?

The idea of a shield law, in which journalists and their sources could be protected, would enable in depth and honest reporting. However, when discussed among lawmakers in the past they have a difficult time agreeing on who should be considered a journalist.

According to the Common Dreams article, “Senator’s attemptto define ‘real journalism’ blasted by journalists", specifically Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-C.A.) has been very outspoken about this topic. She stated that nonsalaried reporters should not be considered journalists. Clearly, some government officials have not realized that traditional forms of journalism (from mainstream news outlets) are no longer the only way the public receives news.

Bloggers or citizen journalists may be producing journalistic content out of their own desire to inform the public on a certain subject. Just because they are acting independently and may not be paid, does not mean they should be discredited as journalists. So long as the information is truthful it should be protected and able to be shared with the public.

The Common Dreams article continues on to quote Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who says, "The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that… But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill."

While it is nice that he is recognizing alternative forms of journalism, there is still the issue of journalists/ sources who expose information the government would not like to be displayed. Had an effective shield law been in place during the WikiLeaks exposure, would Bradley Manning been able to be tried and found guilty?  It would be a problem if a shield law allowed the government to hand select which journalist/sources would be protected due to the type of information they shared.

The right to freedom of the press was placed in our constitution for a reason. Journalists should have the right to present important information to the public without fear of the government’s opinion or interjection. A shield law would ease this worry for journalists however, it is uncertain whether or not an effective shield law will ever be passed.

The Common Dreams article was published in August 2013; over a year later a shield law has not been able to pass. Only time will tell whether lawmakers will be able to agree on a shield law. At this point in time however, it appears that there has not been much progress toward implementing a shield law.

Legal Insurrection creator speaks to independent media students at Ithaca College

The story behind William Jacobson’s conservative blog, Legal Insurrection, is unique when compared to other political news outlets and bloggers. Most bloggers begin a blog because they are extremely passionate about a subject. Jacobson however, was not even aware of what a blog was until a friend recommended he begin a conservative blog. Jacobson was also not very politically involved at the time he was just told that he does a good job at presenting an argument for his political views. Shortly after this recommendation he began Legal Insurrection on Google blogger in October 2012.

When I listened to Jacobson’s story it was interesting to hear the process he went through and how his blog grew from nothing into a site that gets thousands of visits per day. From this I was able to see what it takes to create an interest in a blog.

One piece of advice that stood out to me was the need to link back to other blogs. Jacobson explained that at the beginning he somewhat depended on larger blogs linking to his site and thus causing the audience interested in a certain subject to become aware of his blog. After hearing this explanation it makes sense that this is necessary to increase an audience size however, I never fully understood the importance of linking.

Another aspect important aspect of blogging is the comment section. On Google blogger, Jacobson had the choice of to allow every comment to be public or to moderate all comments. This was clearly problematic because all comments are allowed to be posted, they could be completely inappropriate or state something that should not be associated with the blog. On the other hand, if all comments have to be moderated this could interfere with conversations between audience members that could benefit knowledge of the topic and the blog overall. Many blogs have gained contributors from audience members who continuously blog.  Ultimately, once Legal Insurrection moved to its own website, Jacobson decided to have partially moderated comments. This was most likely the best way to block the majority of unwanted comments and still allow influential conversations between readers to occur.

Jacobson’s story was so interesting to me because this blog has become a major part of his life, which he did not anticipate happening at all. This is a clear example that anyone can become a blogger. Also, Jacobson is a fulltime law professor at Cornell yet (with the help of his staff) he is producing real journalism and giving readers in depth looks at important issues. Legal Insurrection and many other blogs show that even if the producer of the stories is not an official journalist, if he/she is producing important content it should be considered a work of journalism.