The first argument was talking more about the beneficial side of Citizen Journalism. Some people see it as our right to see what is going on around our community, our country, and also around the world. No matter what the content is, it should be something that could be seen by all people. When you watch the news or read a newspaper, it is almost forcing you to think about certain things. While you form your own opinion, you only get an opinion over what is being presented in the article or news story. With Citizen Journalism, any content can be added to the internet with a push of a button, and can spread pretty quickly. That's why the speed of Citizen Journalism is another factor that makes it so appealing. I hadn't even heard the news about the West fertilizer plant explosion, but I looked on the internet, and saw the video, with a short description of what had happened. While it was difficult for me to know what exactly happened or really how much damage had been caused, I was informed of it before the news stations or newspapers ever got to it. People can be informed faster through Citizen Journalism, and that is seen as a positive with some people. Also it can be used to raise activism about countries around the world that we may hear about on the news. Videos get posted to the internet about riots, or police brutality, and other issues happening in other counties. It makes people more aware about what is truly going on, rather than being filtered material through the news.
Then there is the side of people who are against Citizen Journalism. This mainly stems from people wondering why the person was videoing rather than helping what is wrong with what they are shooting, such as gang violence, or police brutality, or a house burning down, etc....Also there comes an issue as to the content that we view on the internet. With as much access that we have nowadays, it is easier for anyone to get a hold of violent content including teenagers and children. Some parents may not want their children to be exposed to such things, and with Citizen Journalism it is that much easier to find these things. The question of censorship is brought up a lot with Citizen Journalism, because a lot of these videos are hard to regulate, especially when twitter and facebook can spread them so fast.
I also found the app Signal to be most interesting. The fact that there is an app for Citizen Journalism shows the rise of it, which could then threaten traditional news media as well. Signal allows users to post videos of newsworthy content, with a 60 character description. Also if there are different videos of the same event, Signal puts them all together, kind of like a full news story.
So I guess the question is, are you a fan of Citizen Journalism, or an Anti-fan? What are some, if any, of the regulations that you would put on Citizen Journalism?
I am a fan of Citizen Journalism, though I do understand the anti-fan’s argument. Why didn’t they help, but this has been argued for any sort of documentary style media. Citizen Journalism is there form of helping. They get the word out about the injustice or issues that have happened. Though I am a fan of “Traditional Journalism” I do find that Citizen Journalism has brought a whole new edge to journalism. Instead of waiting till the nightly news to see what happened you are able to log on line or use apps like Signal and see what has happened almost immediately after it happened. You also see it through the eyes of someone who was there and someone who these issues directly affected. There is a passion in Citizen Journalism that is lacking in “traditional journalism”. We discussed in class the possibility of traditional journalism and citizen journalism converging, I think this is highly probable. What do you think, will citizen journalism and traditional journalism combine or do you think citizen journalism will take over?
ReplyDeleteTroy I think you raise an interesting point concerning the speed of citizen journalism. Although you may not have heard the full story of what happened in West, Texas, you were informed fairly quickly and it probably lead you you to a more traditional form of media. In this sense C.J is beneficial to spreading the word very quickly and even informing media (that may still be unaware of a newsworthy event) to respond to certain situations. I am usually skeptical about news I come across on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter but if it’s something that interests me I will most likely research through a more credible source. So if nothing else citizen journalism is a “gateway” news source.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing, do you know really grinds my gears? criticizing citizen journalists for failing to put the camera down and save the day. These hecklers are the cowards. People may be brave while sitting at their computer, in their favorite pajamas, but I doubt they’d all be as valiant as they claim in a similar situation.
Personally, I support citizen journalism.
ReplyDeleteFor those that oppose citizen journalists for recording incidents rather than intervening, I believe the adage “Easier said than done.” is applicable. Furthermore, in some incidences, intervening could place more individuals in danger. People sometimes dismiss how useful documenting these events can be. If multiple people record, the compilation of their videos can form a more accurate representation of the event that the court can use to assess the incident.
For those that argue citizen journalism can potentially taint the pristine representation of the world that some parents may want to uphold for their kids, I believe that there are so many other forms of media through which their children can be exposed to violence - such as movies and video games. If not at home, children and teenagers can become exposed to violent movies and video games by going to their friends' houses or hearing about them at school. Additionally, children and teenagers are not shielded from the possibility of exposure to these incidents.
I agree with Jensen's post above about the passion in citizen journalism. Citizens are not paid to record these videos and upload them to Youtube. Something about the incident is interesting or provoking enough that citizens take time out of their day to share their documentation with others. It is likely that other citizens will find the incident interesting or provoking as well.
I am all about Citizen Journalism because it helps in spreading news faster than anything. I have personally subscribe to BBC, CNN and the Independent on Facebook so while I am catching up on my friends’ lives, I am also catching up on daily news because those old days are gone where you would sit in the front of your TV and watch an hour of a news broadcast. I think Citizen Journalism also brings awareness to people about certain topics that we might have never known unless we had technology and social media networks. The gay bashings that are happening in Russia currently is such a disturbing scene and I would have not known that if people didn’t take pictures and post them online. I agree that everything is just a button away nowadays and I really like that.
ReplyDeleteHowever I also completely agree why people film brutal, violent scenes but are not stopping it. My brother showed me all these video clips of all the fights that were happening at his high school. What was surprising was that he was not the only recording this fight but everyone in the circle had his or her phones out filming it with him.