Monday, November 11, 2013

It's Kind of Almost Citizen Journalism

In their article ‘This is citizen journalism at its finest': YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident Antony and Thomas compare traditional forms of media to a guard dog, “a sentry not for the community as a whole, but for groups having sufficient power and influence.” They make the argument that media only publish news that corresponds with the status quo or supports an elite or dominant classes ideals and in turn claim that public platforms such as YouTube represent more diverse perspectives. They suggest that YouTube is a “democratic forum for otherwise oppressed voices, YouTube has afforded individuals who are victim to repressive state and federal authorities the opportunity to broadcast their strife and turmoil for the world to view” (Antony and Thomas.)
Although I believe citizen journalism benefits the American public by presenting alternative opinions during national debates, alerting people to news worthy events they might not have heard of, or allowing almost anyone to have a voice who wants one, YouTube is essentially no different than any other traditional form of media. Although anybody can upload, view, and discuss content on the site, Google still holds the ultimate authority on who gets access to that content. As the owner of YouTube, Google dictates what gets to be uploaded, viewed, and discussed. They are the editor and chief. Antony and Thomas use the example of how the cellphone footage of the Oscar Grant shooting demonstrated citizen journalist’s spreading the word of oppression. The video’s went viral overnight. Eventually television stations, according to Antony and Thomas, were “pressured” into broadcasting some of the videos because of the public outrage at the incident. However, are media moguls really pressured by citizen journalists if they are publishing their stories on these companies platforms? Is true citizen journalism out of our reach when we use websites like YouTube?
As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press, the government legally cannot censor public opinion. But a newspaper isn’t obligated to publish your letter to the editor and a website isn’t bound by law to broadcast your content.

YouTube Censorship: Countries That Restrict Access [Feb 2013]

I agree that citizen journalism is a more democratic model of media. It holds traditional forms of media accountable and encourages them to relay news and information honestly and accurately. However, as long as citizen journalists communicate through privately owned mediums such as YouTube, there will always be the possibility of censorship and that’s not
democracy.

Steven Colbert on YouTube Comment Censorship

Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. AnonymousNovember 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM

    I never really thought of this idea before, that we do not have true citizen journalism if we used privately owned sites like YouTube. I agree that there is a lack of authentic citizen journalism. We want to have our voices heard and we cannot do that if they are being silenced. YouTube should not take down videos because the government wants it to. If we cannot have our concerns voiced then what is even the point. There are other sites that allow people to post their videos that are not pressured by the government, but YouTube is accessed by billions of people. YouTube is the mecca of user generated videos. YouTube is part of our cultural zeitgeist and it something that people trust. If we get YouTube to stop being pressured to remove videos then I think citizen journalism will grow even more than it already has. People will be more willing to be citizen journalist without this fear of censorship. Do you think YouTube will stop taking down protest videos or should citizen journalist take a different approach?

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownNovember 15, 2013 at 1:33 PM

    I think you raise an interesting point - that using privately-owned companies undermines true citizen journalism. While Youtube has the ability to remove and censor videos at the request of governments, I feel that that the replicability that the Internet offers still allows Youtube to be a very powerful tool for citizen journalism. When a Youtube video is uploaded and viewed, users can spread the content within the video in many different ways. At the click of a button, users can screenshot certain frames of the video. With a provoked viewer and a couple taps on a keyboard, commentary on the incident can end up on Twitter or blogs. Using special software, viewers can download the Youtube video, which can then be re-uploaded to Youtube or other video-sharing sites. Although Youtube has the power to take down videos, within the time frame between a video's initial presence on the Internet and its removal, the video's content can find its way into other hands that Youtube does NOT have control over. While Youtube's role in facilitating citizen journalism is not ideal, Youtube's large audience coupled with replicability allows it to be a space for citizen journalists to effectively introduce their content and documentation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownNovember 26, 2013 at 5:40 PM

    While I agree with you that it is not really true citizen journalism, I think it just goes along with the idea that we are always changing. So to most people, this is citizen journalism because it is not on a national news coverage. While yes, posting it to places like YouTube or Twitter makes it less authentic as citizen journalism, it still is in the same category as citizen journalism. Maybe it is because I view citizen journalism as a more broad term, meaning that if a citizen posts it, and it is not through a major new production company, than it is a form of citizen journalism.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)