We're killing the newspaper!

After this weeks lecture on citizen journalism I thought I'd go into a bit more detail in this area, in particular what effects the online revolution of produsage has had on traditional newspaper formats.

It has been a daily ritual for many for years, reading their morning newspaper over a cup of coffee or on the way to work, however, over the past couple of years, the Internet, through citizen journalism, has increasingly generated more news, with increasing quality and credibility, having a dramatic effect on the traditional newspaper. Citizen Journalism is the act of citizens openly publishing their own media content, such as stories, images and videos, immediately made available and open for public discussion and further improvement (Bruns 2008a). Bruns (2008b, 2) has identified that citizen journalism "fundamentally disrupts the industrial journalism model by employing its users as journalists and commentators". This is evident through some significant newspaper figures.

Circulation and readership figures for newspapers have been declining significantly over the past few years. This is not helped by a decrease in advertising revenue, as well as from classifieds, most of which has transferred to the Internet. Some are going as far as saying that "the most useful bit of the media is disappearing". Over the last couple of years hundreds of newspapers have closed their doors because they could not compete with the rise in the Internet and a drastic decline in their readership numbers. Only the largest newspapers have survived, but even some of them are starting to struggle. Ironically, most newspapers now have websites as well as the printed version. Examples here include the online version of the Times and the Courier Mail.

So the signs seem to be obvious, blaming the Internet. However, some argue we are wrongly accusing the Internet, seeing newspaper decline has been part of a 20 year trend (which is longer than the average person has had Internet access). Some believe the real cause for the decline is 24-hour cable news, while others say it was the change in rules governing telemarketing. Axel Bruns (2008b, 2) has also identified that citizen journalism "better resembles a conversation than a lecture", which could indicate that there is hope for traditional journalists yet. There's no denying however, that the Internet now plays a major part in the slow death of newspapers.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Internet! I spend hours on end on it, and my home page is news site ninemsn.com. Studying media it is interesting to look into the effects of the Internet on other media. I also believe that citizen journalism is a great way for our voices, opinions and beliefs, which were quiet before, to be heard. However, I belief some news should be left to the experts. I wish to someday work as a journalist, but if citizen journalism continues to increase I might be out of a job. Therefore, moral of the story is, do keep buying newspapers so. Oh, and you'll get less spam and annoying epileptic flashing ads while you're reading too...

Reference:

Bruns, A. (2008a) KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 10 Podcast: Citizen Journalism. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/ (accessed May 8, 2008).

Bruns, A. (2008b) Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1
(accessed April 30, 2008).

Citizen Journalism - a question of quality?

How do communities evaluate quality?

OK, so this question could mean a lot of things. Quality where exactly? In culture, online, but where? Seeing this weeks lecture in my university subject KCB201 (which is why I am writing this blog by the way, for those of you who didn't know...) was about Citizen Journalism, so one can only assume to base this question on the quality of citizen journalism, in particular what is being published online.

Citizen Journalism is the act of citizens (people in the community) playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information. In other words, they are publishing content, traditionally exclusively done by journalists, such as news and other information, themselves. Axel Bruns (2008, 69) has also identified that in all its forms, citizen journalism is driven by similar motivations as open source software, both acting as a "corrective and a supplement to the output of commercial, industrial journalism".

If you still don't get it, watch the video below. It gives viewers a rough idea, outlining what citizen journalism is. Videos just somehow always seem to explain it so much better than text...

A question of credibility and quality comes into consideration here, because citizen journalism, like the name suggests, is produced and published by the public. A short educative paper I found online sums this problem up quite nicely. "The quality of any citizen journalism project reflects the contributions of those who choose to participate, and such projects can be havens for triviality or unreliable content. At the same time, many users are inclined to trust material they find online, particularly if it is called “news.” In this way, citizen journalism projects have the potential to implicitly validate content that might be inaccurate, offensive, or otherwise lack credibility."

However, take for example Wikipedia. Its content is entirely produced by volunteers. That means, anyone with an account can add information on a topic of their choosing. But how do we know that this information is then correct, how do we know the content is false? A study of the quality of Wikipedia article's has in fact identified that Wikipedia articles are about as accurate as those found in the Encyclopedia Britannica (BBC News).

Citizen Journalism has both its positives and negatives. I feel it's really up to the consumer to decide if what they are seeing has quality and credibility. It really also depends on the point of view you are wanting to take if you think something is right or wrong. In my opinion, I like Wikipedia for a way to get started on finding more credible information. After all, the producers of the content would have also needed to get it somewhere. I suppose in this way it does have some credibility. Now all I need is for my lecturers to see that too and essays would be a breeze (I wish)...

Reference:

Bruns, A. (2008) News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News, in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 69-100. https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd//KCB201/KCB201_BK_163501.pdf (accessed May 8, 2008).