Towards the end of our conversation this morning, we did a little back-and-forth that ended up with a thought that was very clarifying for me - which I'd like to share, even though it may be obvious to some...
Many people use the term 'citizen journalism' to refer to tools such as twitter, faves, digg, or to the act of blogging or posting a photo online.
Why? I think it's because soliciting and aggregating voices has always been an important part of journalism. I wrote the following comment on the OJR story the other day:
Gathering 'voices from the crowd' has always been an important part of journalism, and the tools available today make that increasingly easy to do. Blogging tools allow for easy digital expression, and all of the aggregating tools out there make it easy to collect those voices together.
But journalism is also about more than that. And we'd like to provide a platform and revenue model for those people who are willing to go (and passionate about going) the extra mile to dig deep on a story, or to actually go interview someone.
I posit that the term 'citizen journalism' should be used to refer to the fact that technology has made it easy (it was always possible) for people not traditionally identified as 'Journalists' to do two things:
- Perform an 'act of journalism'
- Share that act with a meaningful audience
On the other hand, the tools and technologies that allow people to create, publish, and aggregate content should be called 'crowd sourcing' or crowdigation ('crowd content creation and aggregation'). Crowdigation tools are great for citizen journalists, but it's not at all the case that they constitute citizen journalism.
So where does reporterist fit in?
It IS a tool for citizen journalism and for citizen journalists. It is not a crowdigation tool.
4 comments:
Interesting comments. I was actually a researcher for Jeff Howe who coined the phrase "crowdsourcing." I also studied it pretty intensely during Assignment Zero (http://zero.newassignment.net).
Wouldn't mind talking to you more about this in length. I'm not 100 percent sure I get the distinction you are trying to make.
Reporterist is a tool for citizen journalism: I was under the assumption that people who submit pitches are getting paid: That seems more like the act of a professional journalist than a citizen journalist.
But I do get the distinction that it is not a crowdignation tool (which I assume is the same as a crowdsourcing tool).
Still - I think there is room for that shift: If editors put out a call for a story - and anybody could answer: you would be crowdsourcing.
(I had originally titled this post 'semantics', predicting all of the definition conflict)
oh cool. yeah i originally used the term 'crowdsourcing' when talking to John, but then didn't completely think the wikipedia definition for it matched what I was trying to express...
Me (or me plus 1000 other people) blogging is not really replacing a task that was someone's job; as the wikipedia definition suggests. Nor do I blog or aggregate because someone has put out an 'open call'.
"If editors put out a call for a story - and anybody could answer: you would be crowdsourcing."
Agreed. Editors have asked for that, and it's in the pipeline (with slightly more control than just offering a story up to the entire crowd).
so yes, reporterist is a crowdsourcing tool as you suggest, but no - it's not a crowdigation tool.
"pitches are getting paid: That seems more like the act of a professional journalist than a citizen journalist."
Why can't citizen journalists get paid for their effort? What's wrong with blurring the line between freelancers and citizen journalists?
Of course, publishers equate "citizen journalism" and "user-generated" with free content. But that's because it's in their interest to not have to pay anything.
I don't see why 'free' should be part of the definition of citizen journalism.
I don't see why 'free' should be part of the definition of citizen journalism.
I agree with that. It's silly to think that citizen journalists can't get paid at all. But if somebody is pitching and writing all the time and making a good living off it - they aren't citizen journalists.
For me, citizen journalism equates doing something in your spare time. That means you might make money off of it - but not a serious living.
As for crowdsourcing and reporterist: Check out a related crowdsourced site: Pixish, which just launched.
Very similar to how Reporterist might work if it were more open.
pixish looks very cool. I will definitely play around with it some more. thanks for the heads up.
wrt. citj, I think we are in agreement.
Consider the main two 'parties' that our site connects (journalists and publishers).
I maintain that, for each of those parties, we'd like to appeal to the entire spectrum between more traditional (professional journalists/freelancers, and traditional media) as well as the nouveau (citizen journalists, and online media).
Post a Comment