Those interested in the citizen journalism are aware of the success of the site OhMyNews out of South Korea, that is widely credited with influencing the outcome of South Korean presidential elections in 2002.
Those interested in media and publishing, know that micro-publishing (publishing of information targeted at a very local, community audience) has been an elusive trend in the publishing industry, yet something that has been tried over and over again.
At Neaju, we are currently watching development of micro-publishing effort by a Texas town and the effect it is having on a local mayor race.
The town is Frisco, TX. Surprisingly (or not) it is a relatively active cyber town. With population of about 100,000, it has a local discussion forum, Frisco On-Line, which according to the site, receives about 200,000 visitors and 3,000,000 page views per month. So maybe it is not so surprising that as a whole, the community is starting to embrace the concept of citizen journalism.
The town is preparing for the election of two new City Council Members, but most importantly, Frisco's next mayor. The race seems to be between two candidates - Matt Lafata and Maher Maso. Lafata is a a current member of the Frisco City Council while Maso was term-limited out after serving many years as both City Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem. Both seem to enjoy wide support. Yet it is Maso's campaign that seems to be taking citizen journalism seriously and apparently reaping some early rewards.
The Unofficial Maher Maso Channel has been one of the first ones created on Neaju, and articles in support for Maso's candidacy have been appearing from the early days (altmost 2 months now ).
Yet over the last few weeks, the frequency of reports has been intensified, and some interesting information is starting to surface about the second candidate - Matt Lafata. Apparently, citizens are using the Freedom of Information act to obtain information about Matt, and uncover irregularities. A number of stories have been posted on Neaju relating to this issue, including one that questions Lafata's finances.
Whatever happens in this race, it is encouraging to see such a wide participation on a local level, albeit in support of a single candidate, and hey, maybe Neaju will be credited with influencing mayoral elections in Frisco, and maybe we'll get the first interview with the new Mayor, much like OhMyNews did. Regardless, what's happening in Frisco is further proof that citizen journalism is alive, well, and very powerful.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Why I generally hate the traditional media
I really do generally hate the traditional media. The reason why I say "generally" because the definition of a traditional media is "generally" broad. Obviously the CNNs, and Foxes, and New York Times of the world are considered traditional, but then we get into National Enquirer, and National Review, and other national, regional or otherwise publications, with or without the online presence, and what do you call traditional anyway?
But that isn't what this post is about. It is about the much damage that media does to the public opinion in their race to save their failing business models and make a buck.
Few weeks ago, I was in Las Vegas for a tradeshow, and on the way back, I got an SMS from a friend who was watching CNN and the big headline was the terrorist scare in Las Vegas. As I am driving down the strip and reading the message, I am dumbfounded - what is that all about. So I ask my friend (the passenger) to look up what's going on. He naturally finds the ricin story, and even an indication on CNN online that authorities believe there is no connection between ricin and any terrorist activity. Yet, CNN felt compelled to headline their TV story with an obviously false, and provocative title. As liberal as they are perceived, CNN this time sided with the President Bush in provoking fear? Although I wanted to make a post on that, I was too busy the past few weeks and sort of let it drop. Until today.
I open up my browser, and the first thing I see is the headline from NY Times: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring". As I read the article, it obviously became clear that he solicited a prostitute. Further reading on the topic has uncovered similar stories about Gov. Spitzer's "involvement" with a prostitution ring.
Let me be perfectly clear on this - I applauded Mr. Spitzer for the work he did as an US attorney, I supported his bid for the governor, and I think he deserves absolutely everything that is coming to him because of what he did - all of the family troubles, political exile, public ridiculing, and eternal damnation.
But the post is not about the Governor, but the low-life tactics used by the New York Times, and others, to bring this story to life. Naturally, the editors and writers in these fine establishments will argue that "involved" has many different meanings. In theory, they will be correct, but practically speaking, they have suggested that Gov. Spitzer was somehow part of the ring - managed it, invested in it, covered it, whatever - but he was involved, which is how most of us read the headline anyway. Soliciting a prostitute is not the same as being involved in a prostitution ring. Heck, I'd even allow that someone may do so in a moment of weakness, but being involved in the operation is a long standing deliberate act that violates at least 2 dozen or so US and international laws.
But what does NY Times care? Even though a headline of "Eliot Spitzer Solicited a Prostitute" would have been enough to draw attention and readership, and would have displayed at least some adherence to journalistic principles, they are after shock-and-awe affect, they are after blowing up an elephant out of a fly (as we used to say in Russia), and they are continuing their tradition of .. supporting lies in journalism.
So the CNN and NY Times others have made a mistake where I (or otherwise) could call them out on it. But what if it something that we cannot possibly confirm or deny. How are we to trust them on something exclusive, if they make such a blatant disregard of truth in their daily operations? Imagine if the hundreds of thousands were watching their TVs in Las Vegas instead of sleeping off their hangovers or playing the slots, and actually saw what CNN said about Las Vegas? Imagine the theories that will pop-up now as a result of Times calling Spitzer's act of solicitation an "involvement"?
Unbelievable, yet expected ....
But that isn't what this post is about. It is about the much damage that media does to the public opinion in their race to save their failing business models and make a buck.
Few weeks ago, I was in Las Vegas for a tradeshow, and on the way back, I got an SMS from a friend who was watching CNN and the big headline was the terrorist scare in Las Vegas. As I am driving down the strip and reading the message, I am dumbfounded - what is that all about. So I ask my friend (the passenger) to look up what's going on. He naturally finds the ricin story, and even an indication on CNN online that authorities believe there is no connection between ricin and any terrorist activity. Yet, CNN felt compelled to headline their TV story with an obviously false, and provocative title. As liberal as they are perceived, CNN this time sided with the President Bush in provoking fear? Although I wanted to make a post on that, I was too busy the past few weeks and sort of let it drop. Until today.
I open up my browser, and the first thing I see is the headline from NY Times: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring". As I read the article, it obviously became clear that he solicited a prostitute. Further reading on the topic has uncovered similar stories about Gov. Spitzer's "involvement" with a prostitution ring.
Let me be perfectly clear on this - I applauded Mr. Spitzer for the work he did as an US attorney, I supported his bid for the governor, and I think he deserves absolutely everything that is coming to him because of what he did - all of the family troubles, political exile, public ridiculing, and eternal damnation.
But the post is not about the Governor, but the low-life tactics used by the New York Times, and others, to bring this story to life. Naturally, the editors and writers in these fine establishments will argue that "involved" has many different meanings. In theory, they will be correct, but practically speaking, they have suggested that Gov. Spitzer was somehow part of the ring - managed it, invested in it, covered it, whatever - but he was involved, which is how most of us read the headline anyway. Soliciting a prostitute is not the same as being involved in a prostitution ring. Heck, I'd even allow that someone may do so in a moment of weakness, but being involved in the operation is a long standing deliberate act that violates at least 2 dozen or so US and international laws.
But what does NY Times care? Even though a headline of "Eliot Spitzer Solicited a Prostitute" would have been enough to draw attention and readership, and would have displayed at least some adherence to journalistic principles, they are after shock-and-awe affect, they are after blowing up an elephant out of a fly (as we used to say in Russia), and they are continuing their tradition of .. supporting lies in journalism.
So the CNN and NY Times others have made a mistake where I (or otherwise) could call them out on it. But what if it something that we cannot possibly confirm or deny. How are we to trust them on something exclusive, if they make such a blatant disregard of truth in their daily operations? Imagine if the hundreds of thousands were watching their TVs in Las Vegas instead of sleeping off their hangovers or playing the slots, and actually saw what CNN said about Las Vegas? Imagine the theories that will pop-up now as a result of Times calling Spitzer's act of solicitation an "involvement"?
Unbelievable, yet expected ....
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
True vs. Untrue ..?
The responses over our campaign continue to pour in. There is some activity in the blogging circles, and there are numerous email messages that are received by us in connection with us laying claim on being a "true" citizen journalism site.
It all started with Univeristy of Missouri and Jeremy Littau's post (after some early cat fighting, Jeremy and I sort of worked out our differences by the end of day yesterday - they are doing some great work at University of Missouri with MyMissourian.) Then some other bloggers picked it up, and the emails started to pour in.
The problem, as I said, is that most bloggers, and especially those involved in some type of citizen journalism effort, do not take too kindly to us saying that we are Internet's first true citizen journalism site, on the basis that we do not exercise editorial control over citizen reports.
And then there are users like RK. Not sure what RK means, but I sure know what RK stands for:
It all started with Univeristy of Missouri and Jeremy Littau's post (after some early cat fighting, Jeremy and I sort of worked out our differences by the end of day yesterday - they are doing some great work at University of Missouri with MyMissourian.) Then some other bloggers picked it up, and the emails started to pour in.
The problem, as I said, is that most bloggers, and especially those involved in some type of citizen journalism effort, do not take too kindly to us saying that we are Internet's first true citizen journalism site, on the basis that we do not exercise editorial control over citizen reports.
And then there are users like RK. Not sure what RK means, but I sure know what RK stands for:
I've been saying for a very long time that citizen journalism, or the very notion that anyone can be a journalist in some capacity, is dead. Majority of people are not interested in reporting, or leading, or participating. They are solely interested in being led, and reported to, and swallow it with great pleasure. But "true" citizen journalism? I'd equate that to saying "stinky ****" (edited by me, but he meant poop).
Ugly stuff. RK here is probably the most extreme point of view expressed to us thus far. But other responses from those "in the know" have been sort of similar.
Let me be perfectly clear here. At Neaju. we do believe that we are a "true" citizen journalism site. Not only because we do not exercise editorial control. Neaju's goal is to appeal as a news reporting medium to as wide of an audience as possible, to get participation from people of all walks of life, and to attempt to assemble a complete picture of a news event. When we'll be able to achieve that, if ever, only time will tell. But it is our goal nonetheless.
So the first issue here is editorial control. On one side, the problem we have with it, is it being a deterrent in it of itself. Citizen journalism sites that operate with editorial controls cater to "prosumer" market - those who are not professional journalists, but have a thing for writing, and maybe should have been writers. The rest of the public seems to have "why bother" attitude. Marketing weaknesses aside, how else would you explain lack of wide-spread popularity of long-standing citizen journalism sites?
On the other side is the editor him/herself. We all have views and opinions. And not even taking into consideration the possible slant that those news and opinions may inject - simply concentrating on what that editor considers to be quality. From my survey of the citizen journalism sites, it seems that most of them exercise exactly this sort of editorial control - they suggest or comment on the quality of the article (although MyMissourian seems to just check for decency and factual accuracy, but they also state that they will spell and grammar check). So now, the citizen journalist is editing his original work based on what the editor considers quality, possibly removing some of the personal flavor that may appeal to certain readership, but the point is - this scenario, in our minds, detracts from the integrity of the citizen journalism, never-mind that it may turn a very entertaining article into a dull and boring one.
But honestly, I do not see very many of the current citizen journalism sites accepting an image of a presidential candidate walking into a restaurant with a quick text of: "Hey look! It's Obama walking into Ruth Chris in Austin! Someone's trying to get his autograph!" (although I have seen some sites that do, although it is generally treated as an image submission, not a news report.)
But we would, because we believe it is news, or it may even become a bigger news, if let's say he eats a bad steak, and misses his debate tomorrow at UT. And it maybe news for other reasons - Netizens have diverse interests. Some may take an issue with him wearing white socks that have showed up on the picture, some may commend him for wearing appropriate attire for the steak house. Who knows. Not us, but our readers will. Which is why our editorial efforts are going to be concentrating on two distinct areas - fact checking/screening for inappropriate content and organizing articles into stories.
One blogger stated that us screening for inappropriate content is a form of editorial control. Perhaps, but it is not done because of control, it is done because of the law. There are very strict rules about pornographic, and other questionable content, and we are abiding by the law in doing so.
But the other concept that Neaju introduces is News Stories. The concept was designed to combine various citizen journalism reports on the same topic under one heading. We will even add news reports by traditional media into the mix - all with a single purpose in mind: using the available reports by citizen journalists and professional journalists to provide news reader with a complete picture of what occurred, leaving him or her to make up their own mind.
Let the hate mail and blogs begin.
But for the record, I still appreciate all of the criticism, and I truly appreciate those of you who respond with interest. For the all huffing and puffing, and us being only 2 weeks old, I'll bet we already have more subscribers then some of the CJ sites whose owners ripped us apart. True, little content, but we are young, and we are growing, and content will come. In due time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)