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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment