Monday, May 18, 2009
New comment deadline: May 25
We have had a request to extend the time to comment about the interviews by a few days, and therefore are setting a new deadline of May 25. Thank you very much to those who have offered their thoughts, and we hope that this extension will allow anyone who hasn't been able to add a comment yet at this busy time of year an opportunity to be involved.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Lew Friedland Question 1
We’re calling these interviews Open Source, and asked our contributors to come up with some questions. That’s what was in the question list I sent you, and I think it worked out pretty well.
It’s a great project that you’re doing; I think the book itself is going to be good. This will come out in the questions better than anything I’ll say right now but it’s a tough question for me whether there is such a thing as “public journalism 2.0.” I don’t see it as a given, for a bunch of reasons that we’ll probably be discussing, just because the world has changed so much.
It’s a great project that you’re doing; I think the book itself is going to be good. This will come out in the questions better than anything I’ll say right now but it’s a tough question for me whether there is such a thing as “public journalism 2.0.” I don’t see it as a given, for a bunch of reasons that we’ll probably be discussing, just because the world has changed so much.
Lew Friedland Question 2
That’s probably a good segue into the first question in the set I sent you and where I did want to start, which is to say that in your article in National Civic Review excerpted from your Kettering Foundation book, you said it was hard to be optimistic about the future of public journalism. But that was several years ago, around 2003-2004. So what’s changed in the landscape since then to either make you more optimistic if you are, or more pessimistic if that’s the way you have gone?
I think one of the hard questions that we have to think about in answering this first question is what public journalism is; the “pivot” of the answer really depends upon how we define it. I don’t necessarily want to go into a long definition at this point but I think I at least need to address it. To me, public journalism was a movement. It was a series of experiments that were largely newspaper based that ran for roughly 10 years, from 1990 or a little earlier, depending on how you’re counting, through about 2002 or 2003. It’s not as if when the Pew Center for Civic Journalism ended that all of a sudden public journalism ended. But what did, I think, change radically around that time was the beginning of the challenge of the Internet to newspapers. The experiments that happened before were for the most part newspaper experiments and, more specifically, they were local newspaper experiments, with some significant exceptions. There were some TV stations, there were some national news organizations – USA Today for example – but for the most part this was a local-newspaper movement.
That means part of the answer to the question for me is intimately bound up with the answer to the question: what is the fate of local newspapers? How much experimentation is there likely to be in local journalism in the next period of, let’s say, 10 years? To me, the answer to that is “precious little.” In fact, what even a few years ago would have seemed to me a somewhat hyperbolic way of framing the question – are there even going to be local newspapers? – now is actually a legitimate way of framing the question. So when I think about whether public journalism will continue and how, whether I’m still pessimistic, the short answer would be: yes, I’m very pessimistic because I’m very pessimistic about the short/medium term fate of local journalism in the United States.
I think one of the hard questions that we have to think about in answering this first question is what public journalism is; the “pivot” of the answer really depends upon how we define it. I don’t necessarily want to go into a long definition at this point but I think I at least need to address it. To me, public journalism was a movement. It was a series of experiments that were largely newspaper based that ran for roughly 10 years, from 1990 or a little earlier, depending on how you’re counting, through about 2002 or 2003. It’s not as if when the Pew Center for Civic Journalism ended that all of a sudden public journalism ended. But what did, I think, change radically around that time was the beginning of the challenge of the Internet to newspapers. The experiments that happened before were for the most part newspaper experiments and, more specifically, they were local newspaper experiments, with some significant exceptions. There were some TV stations, there were some national news organizations – USA Today for example – but for the most part this was a local-newspaper movement.
That means part of the answer to the question for me is intimately bound up with the answer to the question: what is the fate of local newspapers? How much experimentation is there likely to be in local journalism in the next period of, let’s say, 10 years? To me, the answer to that is “precious little.” In fact, what even a few years ago would have seemed to me a somewhat hyperbolic way of framing the question – are there even going to be local newspapers? – now is actually a legitimate way of framing the question. So when I think about whether public journalism will continue and how, whether I’m still pessimistic, the short answer would be: yes, I’m very pessimistic because I’m very pessimistic about the short/medium term fate of local journalism in the United States.
Lew Friedland Question 3
Breaking there is a good segue into the question that Joyce Nip has, which is whether traditional news operations should strive to have as a goal this notion of involving citizens in deliberation. And in addition to asking whether they should they have that as a goal – building off what you were just saying – can they have that as a goal?
There really are two or even three parts to the answer. First of all, should newspapers strive to involve citizens, more generally, and I think the answer to that fairly obviously is: yes, by any means necessary and through every medium possible. And we are seeing that. My colleague Sue Robinson and a number of other folks write about the opening up of the newspaper, changes in journalistic authority, the use of blogs by journalists and certainly the incorporation of various forms of citizen journalism into local Internet versions of newspapers. Clearly there is a rise in citizen involvement and to my mind that’s a good thing, an unabashed good.
The second question is: is that deliberation? And I think that’s a much more difficult question that many people who are involved in advocating for citizen journalism haven’t really answered very well or haven’t thought through as well as perhaps they might have.
The third part of the question concerns deliberation itself and whether that is possible and desirable. In the best of circumstances there was some very deep and rich deliberation conducted by and sponsored by civic and public journalists, particularly for example the Norfolk Virginian Pilot’s efforts that were just very rich and very well prepared. The (Wichita) Eagle did that, too, extremely well, in the beginning. There were other papers obviously that did that quite well; I don’t want to suggest that only those papers [Norfolk and Wichita] did this, but they were particularly good at it.
So there was deliberation conducted by these papers. It required a huge amount of work, a lot of time, and a lot of preparation. There were very skilled public life editors or heads of public life teams that went out and organized them. They often involved various kinds of citizen surveys or focus groups. There was a lot of time and effort and of course money, which pays for time and effort, put into them. I don’t see that happening again in almost any local news organization or newspaper that I can think of any time soon. The Philadelphia Inquirer, which just declared bankruptcy, did some experiments under Chris Satullo in urban planning several years ago. So, it has happened in the period since I wrote that piece. But it’s been very rare, it’s been fairly expensive, it’s usually involved some kind of broader civic partnership along with the newspaper – somebody has to organize and convene it and that’s a whole other set of questions. Right now newspapers are barely equipped to put out the daily news much less organize and convene public deliberations. So, I’m not very sanguine about what I would call genuine deliberation continuing through the auspices of local newspapers. I just don’t think that the personnel in terms of the skill or the time and money is there to do it.
Some people might argue that online citizen journalism is a substitute for deliberation – essentially that the wisdom of crowds that emerges in the context of an ongoing discussion is one possible and a sufficient substitute for that kind of intensive deliberative local experiment. I myself don’t think that it is for a variety of reasons, known to most people who have observed the overall quality of discussion that goes on in most responses to local online newspapers. The quality of that discussion, while sometimes interesting and often lively, is rarely deliberative. I don’t see that kind of deliberation happening anywhere. Again, some advocates of a kind of wisdom-of-crowds approach might say: well, it need not happen because it’s more distributed over space and time, there are more open voices, we don’t need to have that same intensive discussion like we used to. Well, either way I don’t think that it is occurring and I’m not sanguine about it occurring.
Having said that, do I think it should and could occur? Yes, I do. There are now a number of new ways of doing online deliberation that are truly deliberative – experiments that have been conducted by America Speaks and others in using online deliberative modalities that are pretty rich and quite good. But they involve, like I think all real deliberation does, some form of moderated discussion. They don’t do away with the need for an organizer, they don’t do away with the need for a moderator. It’s just that they take place online rather than face-to-face, and that still requires a convener and the money to do that convening. So while I think that the capacity for the kind of deliberation that was done in the heyday of public journalism is there, I think that the will and the resources to do it are not.
There really are two or even three parts to the answer. First of all, should newspapers strive to involve citizens, more generally, and I think the answer to that fairly obviously is: yes, by any means necessary and through every medium possible. And we are seeing that. My colleague Sue Robinson and a number of other folks write about the opening up of the newspaper, changes in journalistic authority, the use of blogs by journalists and certainly the incorporation of various forms of citizen journalism into local Internet versions of newspapers. Clearly there is a rise in citizen involvement and to my mind that’s a good thing, an unabashed good.
The second question is: is that deliberation? And I think that’s a much more difficult question that many people who are involved in advocating for citizen journalism haven’t really answered very well or haven’t thought through as well as perhaps they might have.
The third part of the question concerns deliberation itself and whether that is possible and desirable. In the best of circumstances there was some very deep and rich deliberation conducted by and sponsored by civic and public journalists, particularly for example the Norfolk Virginian Pilot’s efforts that were just very rich and very well prepared. The (Wichita) Eagle did that, too, extremely well, in the beginning. There were other papers obviously that did that quite well; I don’t want to suggest that only those papers [Norfolk and Wichita] did this, but they were particularly good at it.
So there was deliberation conducted by these papers. It required a huge amount of work, a lot of time, and a lot of preparation. There were very skilled public life editors or heads of public life teams that went out and organized them. They often involved various kinds of citizen surveys or focus groups. There was a lot of time and effort and of course money, which pays for time and effort, put into them. I don’t see that happening again in almost any local news organization or newspaper that I can think of any time soon. The Philadelphia Inquirer, which just declared bankruptcy, did some experiments under Chris Satullo in urban planning several years ago. So, it has happened in the period since I wrote that piece. But it’s been very rare, it’s been fairly expensive, it’s usually involved some kind of broader civic partnership along with the newspaper – somebody has to organize and convene it and that’s a whole other set of questions. Right now newspapers are barely equipped to put out the daily news much less organize and convene public deliberations. So, I’m not very sanguine about what I would call genuine deliberation continuing through the auspices of local newspapers. I just don’t think that the personnel in terms of the skill or the time and money is there to do it.
Some people might argue that online citizen journalism is a substitute for deliberation – essentially that the wisdom of crowds that emerges in the context of an ongoing discussion is one possible and a sufficient substitute for that kind of intensive deliberative local experiment. I myself don’t think that it is for a variety of reasons, known to most people who have observed the overall quality of discussion that goes on in most responses to local online newspapers. The quality of that discussion, while sometimes interesting and often lively, is rarely deliberative. I don’t see that kind of deliberation happening anywhere. Again, some advocates of a kind of wisdom-of-crowds approach might say: well, it need not happen because it’s more distributed over space and time, there are more open voices, we don’t need to have that same intensive discussion like we used to. Well, either way I don’t think that it is occurring and I’m not sanguine about it occurring.
Having said that, do I think it should and could occur? Yes, I do. There are now a number of new ways of doing online deliberation that are truly deliberative – experiments that have been conducted by America Speaks and others in using online deliberative modalities that are pretty rich and quite good. But they involve, like I think all real deliberation does, some form of moderated discussion. They don’t do away with the need for an organizer, they don’t do away with the need for a moderator. It’s just that they take place online rather than face-to-face, and that still requires a convener and the money to do that convening. So while I think that the capacity for the kind of deliberation that was done in the heyday of public journalism is there, I think that the will and the resources to do it are not.
Lew Friedland Question 4
Moving on and talking about how the media system has fragmented, what David Ryfe in his question calls a more diverse media ecology developing and the mainstream news media no longer serving as the gatekeepers and filters: what’s your view of what’s being gained and what’s being lost as this happens?
In some ways what’s being gained is fairly obvious, which is a breakdown of one set of institutions and one set of actors, namely editors and reporters as the primary gatekeepers of what people read. I’m going to qualify that in a moment, but we are seeing, among other things a plurality of news sources for anyone who wants to essentially know anything that’s going on in the world. If I want to know what’s going on in Pakistan, I can read an English-language Pakistani paper or I can read the Times of India or I can read the Guardian. I can read The New York Times, I can read The Washington Post and dozens if not hundreds of other supplementary blog sites, independent journalists and so on. So clearly on a global scale the number of perspectives that are open to people is growing rapidly – but not exponentially. The sense of exponential growth is that more and more sources will come online fed by the doubling or tripling of those numbers every year and that somehow there will just literally be an infinite number of sources of reportage on world events. While at some level that’s true and that’s the promise of citizen journalism, that essentially every person can be a reporter, so everyone with an opinion, everyone with some bit of knowledge no matter how small about any issue or event is a possible contributor. Well, that’s formally true now and that’s an achievement that I think we need to acknowledge and not bemoan.
But, on the other hand, there are unanswered questions about the organization of that material, the refining of that material, the development of that material according to a multiplicity of points of view that go beyond the one-off reporting of events done with crowd-sourcing. I think that even on the global scale or on the large metropolitan scale there’s still this issue and this problem of how much reporting is going to be done. Colleagues like my friend and longtime colleague Jay Rosen are adamant about the need for support for a so-called pro-am model. At the same time these proponents – Dan Gillmor, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, to some extent – are not saying that somehow citizen reporting is going to replace the role of the professional; it’s important to be clear that they are resolutely NOT saying that. Nonetheless, there is a lack of answers to how the reporting institutions are going to sustain themselves.
At times I think there’s an assumption that because we have this plurality of points of view that somehow it’s going to keep developing and growing, whereas I actually think that if we turn to the ecology model and we take it seriously it’s possible that we’re about to see the collapse of a niche rather than the continued growth of a set of niches – by which I mean an ecology starts to die when the population can’t actually be supported by the resources available, and I think that we’re starting to enter into a period where not just local papers but even The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times and the Washington Post are starting to feel the pinch of the rapid shift of the news ecology. And so, I’m not so sanguine that the “pro” part of the pro-am is going to be sustainable. If it’s not, then I think that the media ecology is not actually a richer, more vital one. I think that were the pros to disappear, which is happening already, or if they were to scale back, which they certainly and absolutely will at least for the next seven to 10 years of some form of transition…
Look at what Detroit is doing*…
Exactly. Detroit, and you could go on and on and on … the Chronicle in San Francisco, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and this is just in the last week. So we don’t have to look very hard or very far to see the – if not implosion; I don’t want to use that word because it’s hyperbolic – but the radical scaling back of journalism in the United States. European papers, although they’re funded somewhat differently, are under similar kinds of pressures. It’s not clear to me that that a new, robust, networked media ecology is going to remain as robust as it appears to be right now.
Now, everything that I’ve said about the global scale is even more true at the local scale and that’s what I think is the largest blind spot of a lot of this discussion. A lot of the pro-am models that have been relatively successful have been things like the collaborative Sunlight Foundation project that Jay [Rosen] helped convene. The thing that people don’t want to acknowledge is that that’s on a national scale and it’s able to draw on a critical mass of national users who are paying attention to a national problem.
When you scale that back to local community, most local communities don’t have anything like that scale and they don’t have anything like that critical mass. It’s fine to say, “We’re going to get two or three people in every congressional district to keep an eye on earmarks.” I think that’s a good thing, even a great thing. Only a fool would say that it’s not. But it’s much more difficult to say that here in Madison we’re going to get someone in every school district to pay attention to report on the workings of the school board. That’s not a substitute in a local community in a way that it’s at least a plausible substitute on a national scale. And that’s where I think that in a federal democracy, which is what we live in here in the United States – where so much political and economic power is vested in the local, county and state level – to have to rely upon citizen journalism even in the main to report on many of the stories that are now reported on by daily metros I think is delusional.
* The interview took place on Feb. 26, 2009, about two months after the Detroit newspapers had announced cutbacks in home delivery four days of the week that were implemented in late March 2009. Three days before the interview the Philadelphia newspapers had declared bankruptcy, and just the day before the Hearst Corp. had announced it was considering closing the San Francisco Chronicle because of tens of millions of dollars in losses. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver published its final edition the day after the interview.
In some ways what’s being gained is fairly obvious, which is a breakdown of one set of institutions and one set of actors, namely editors and reporters as the primary gatekeepers of what people read. I’m going to qualify that in a moment, but we are seeing, among other things a plurality of news sources for anyone who wants to essentially know anything that’s going on in the world. If I want to know what’s going on in Pakistan, I can read an English-language Pakistani paper or I can read the Times of India or I can read the Guardian. I can read The New York Times, I can read The Washington Post and dozens if not hundreds of other supplementary blog sites, independent journalists and so on. So clearly on a global scale the number of perspectives that are open to people is growing rapidly – but not exponentially. The sense of exponential growth is that more and more sources will come online fed by the doubling or tripling of those numbers every year and that somehow there will just literally be an infinite number of sources of reportage on world events. While at some level that’s true and that’s the promise of citizen journalism, that essentially every person can be a reporter, so everyone with an opinion, everyone with some bit of knowledge no matter how small about any issue or event is a possible contributor. Well, that’s formally true now and that’s an achievement that I think we need to acknowledge and not bemoan.
But, on the other hand, there are unanswered questions about the organization of that material, the refining of that material, the development of that material according to a multiplicity of points of view that go beyond the one-off reporting of events done with crowd-sourcing. I think that even on the global scale or on the large metropolitan scale there’s still this issue and this problem of how much reporting is going to be done. Colleagues like my friend and longtime colleague Jay Rosen are adamant about the need for support for a so-called pro-am model. At the same time these proponents – Dan Gillmor, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, to some extent – are not saying that somehow citizen reporting is going to replace the role of the professional; it’s important to be clear that they are resolutely NOT saying that. Nonetheless, there is a lack of answers to how the reporting institutions are going to sustain themselves.
At times I think there’s an assumption that because we have this plurality of points of view that somehow it’s going to keep developing and growing, whereas I actually think that if we turn to the ecology model and we take it seriously it’s possible that we’re about to see the collapse of a niche rather than the continued growth of a set of niches – by which I mean an ecology starts to die when the population can’t actually be supported by the resources available, and I think that we’re starting to enter into a period where not just local papers but even The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times and the Washington Post are starting to feel the pinch of the rapid shift of the news ecology. And so, I’m not so sanguine that the “pro” part of the pro-am is going to be sustainable. If it’s not, then I think that the media ecology is not actually a richer, more vital one. I think that were the pros to disappear, which is happening already, or if they were to scale back, which they certainly and absolutely will at least for the next seven to 10 years of some form of transition…
Look at what Detroit is doing*…
Exactly. Detroit, and you could go on and on and on … the Chronicle in San Francisco, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and this is just in the last week. So we don’t have to look very hard or very far to see the – if not implosion; I don’t want to use that word because it’s hyperbolic – but the radical scaling back of journalism in the United States. European papers, although they’re funded somewhat differently, are under similar kinds of pressures. It’s not clear to me that that a new, robust, networked media ecology is going to remain as robust as it appears to be right now.
Now, everything that I’ve said about the global scale is even more true at the local scale and that’s what I think is the largest blind spot of a lot of this discussion. A lot of the pro-am models that have been relatively successful have been things like the collaborative Sunlight Foundation project that Jay [Rosen] helped convene. The thing that people don’t want to acknowledge is that that’s on a national scale and it’s able to draw on a critical mass of national users who are paying attention to a national problem.
When you scale that back to local community, most local communities don’t have anything like that scale and they don’t have anything like that critical mass. It’s fine to say, “We’re going to get two or three people in every congressional district to keep an eye on earmarks.” I think that’s a good thing, even a great thing. Only a fool would say that it’s not. But it’s much more difficult to say that here in Madison we’re going to get someone in every school district to pay attention to report on the workings of the school board. That’s not a substitute in a local community in a way that it’s at least a plausible substitute on a national scale. And that’s where I think that in a federal democracy, which is what we live in here in the United States – where so much political and economic power is vested in the local, county and state level – to have to rely upon citizen journalism even in the main to report on many of the stories that are now reported on by daily metros I think is delusional.
* The interview took place on Feb. 26, 2009, about two months after the Detroit newspapers had announced cutbacks in home delivery four days of the week that were implemented in late March 2009. Three days before the interview the Philadelphia newspapers had declared bankruptcy, and just the day before the Hearst Corp. had announced it was considering closing the San Francisco Chronicle because of tens of millions of dollars in losses. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver published its final edition the day after the interview.
Lew Friedland Question 5
You’ve started to answer this, but let me bore in on it a little more specifically. What role might citizen media play in relation to mainstream media in enhancing public life? You seem to be saying there’s maybe a small role there but we maybe are valorizing citizen media a little too much as to what’s possible?
One of the problems is that there is a tendency at times to make a virtue out of necessity – to say that because newspapers are scaling back or even disappearing that citizen journalism can or should take their place or play that role. I want to stress that people like Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor do not say that. But there are people who are less connected with journalism who have somewhat suggested that a lot of what was important and necessary – a lot of what people actually want to read that was being supplied by the local newspapers – can be supplied by various bloggers and citizen contributors at the local level. I think that’s just not the case. So I think that public life will definitely suffer. There may be more formal transparency, but the problem is that formal transparency and reporting are not the same thing. I think that formal transparency without reporting is not strong enough to sustain a democratic public life. It’s necessary but it’s not sufficient.
One of the problems is that there is a tendency at times to make a virtue out of necessity – to say that because newspapers are scaling back or even disappearing that citizen journalism can or should take their place or play that role. I want to stress that people like Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor do not say that. But there are people who are less connected with journalism who have somewhat suggested that a lot of what was important and necessary – a lot of what people actually want to read that was being supplied by the local newspapers – can be supplied by various bloggers and citizen contributors at the local level. I think that’s just not the case. So I think that public life will definitely suffer. There may be more formal transparency, but the problem is that formal transparency and reporting are not the same thing. I think that formal transparency without reporting is not strong enough to sustain a democratic public life. It’s necessary but it’s not sufficient.
Lew Friedland Question 6
Shifting gears to discuss notions of citizen and civic journalism: what do you see are the principle differences between those?
I see really huge differences between them and I really don’t like the aligning of the distinctions. I think that it was done almost out of convenience when civic journalism started to decline around 2003 and not coincidentally with the sunsetting of the Pew Center for Civic Journalism. There were some people who basically thought, for reasons of good will, that citizen journalism was going to be a continuation of what civic journalism was and in fact even an expansion. If civic journalism’s goal was to involve citizens in the newsgathering process, then certainly the Web was going to open that up even further and to make that process even easier.
For some of the reasons that we’ve just talked about, certainly the Web and Web 2.0 in particular have opened up journalism to more voices. There have been some places like the Spokane Spokesman-Review up until about a year ago under Steve Smith and Ken Sands, where they actually were making a mixed model of citizen and civic journalism work extremely well. But again, that required not just citizens but editors and reporters. There are three legs to that stool and what we’ve seen, I think, since then is fewer editors, fewer reporters, more citizen voices less well-edited and less well-organized. I know that there are supporters of citizen journalism who would say “well, that’s fine.” Essentially the Web is self-organizing, that we don’t really need editors and reporters to organize that discussion, that the discussion people spontaneously engage in tends to organize itself.
Again, I don’t want to contest that there is a great benefit there; I think that’s an important moment to understand. We need to be able to hold two sides of a contradiction in our minds at once. It is positive that citizens are able to in fact both write and report but also contest and question and dispute the accounts of the traditional press. I think that’s a good thing. But I also think that in the absence of the journalistic function, which does involve editing and reporting at a moderate to high level of professionalism, that we are actually missing an important element that adds significant value to citizen journalism as well.
I see really huge differences between them and I really don’t like the aligning of the distinctions. I think that it was done almost out of convenience when civic journalism started to decline around 2003 and not coincidentally with the sunsetting of the Pew Center for Civic Journalism. There were some people who basically thought, for reasons of good will, that citizen journalism was going to be a continuation of what civic journalism was and in fact even an expansion. If civic journalism’s goal was to involve citizens in the newsgathering process, then certainly the Web was going to open that up even further and to make that process even easier.
For some of the reasons that we’ve just talked about, certainly the Web and Web 2.0 in particular have opened up journalism to more voices. There have been some places like the Spokane Spokesman-Review up until about a year ago under Steve Smith and Ken Sands, where they actually were making a mixed model of citizen and civic journalism work extremely well. But again, that required not just citizens but editors and reporters. There are three legs to that stool and what we’ve seen, I think, since then is fewer editors, fewer reporters, more citizen voices less well-edited and less well-organized. I know that there are supporters of citizen journalism who would say “well, that’s fine.” Essentially the Web is self-organizing, that we don’t really need editors and reporters to organize that discussion, that the discussion people spontaneously engage in tends to organize itself.
Again, I don’t want to contest that there is a great benefit there; I think that’s an important moment to understand. We need to be able to hold two sides of a contradiction in our minds at once. It is positive that citizens are able to in fact both write and report but also contest and question and dispute the accounts of the traditional press. I think that’s a good thing. But I also think that in the absence of the journalistic function, which does involve editing and reporting at a moderate to high level of professionalism, that we are actually missing an important element that adds significant value to citizen journalism as well.
Lew Friedland Question 7
Is there a way that citizen journalism can be made more civic minded in light of all the limitations you were just talking about?
I think there are ways. I think that there are new models that are emerging; there certainly are experiments going on that are worth watching and in some cases emulating. Voice of San Diego is one such model that people point to as a Web-based, online journal; the MinnPost and Twin Cities Daily Planet in Minneapolis-St. Paul point toward a new model. I think that there are experiments that are taking place locally. Of course, Walter Isaacson recently pointed toward the possibility of micropayments , and that would follow the OhMy News model of South Korea to some extent.
People also have raised the question of philanthropic support. Paul Starr recently wrote an important piece in the New Republic that said we might have to and perhaps we ought to be looking not simply at non-profit models but large philanthropies as a model for sustaining more traditional journalism and reporting. I think there’s validity, potentially, to all of those models and almost certainly ones that we haven’t thought about yet. I probably would throw our own Madison Commons model into the mix as well, where there’s an active effort to go out and organize the community to report on itself, to supplement the reporting of the mainstream news organizations. We had to train people to do that. So there are if not a thousand, at least dozens of flowers blooming as potential alternatives.
Having said that, and I hate to be very pessimistic but I think I am realistic in saying that all of those are very fragile. I am not convinced that the philanthropic sector, which of course is under significant economic pressure right now like every other institution, is going to step up to the degree necessary to replace something like the role of robust local journalism in the United States. The Voice of San Diego model is working at some levels; it’s having some significant success. But it’s also having some trouble sustaining itself economically. They’re also relying on philanthropy and the public radio model; that is part of their business model. But, they’re struggling. Madison Commons struggles because people work [at other jobs], for example, and journalism is real work. People don’t necessarily want to do the work of journalists. So it’s hard to have citizen reporters replace professional reporters on any kind of scale. I’m not that sanguine that any of these experiments that are being tried are necessarily going to succeed. I don’t think there’s enough money there. I don’t think that micropayments are going to be sufficient to support local newsrooms, although that could change.
Ironically, this goes with a question about the future, if and I think unfortunately when newspapers actually start to collapse in the United States as opposed to limp along so that – to go back to my ecological metaphor we have the actual death of a population as opposed to simply the war of each against all for a more limited resource pool – once we’ve cleared the field we might see new ways of combining display ad revenue, micropayments, various public-private subsidies and so on, that might support a new kind of local journalism. But we don’t know what those are yet. Some of the models that we’ve seen are very creative and important experiments. By no means am I putting them down because they are not economically sustainable – but they aren’t economically sustainable. I’m not sure what will happen. It’s possible that – and I think this goes to another question – but it’s not clear to me that the structure of civic life that we have in the United States at this point demands or will support local journalism. It may be that we’ve just moved on from there historically.
I think there are ways. I think that there are new models that are emerging; there certainly are experiments going on that are worth watching and in some cases emulating. Voice of San Diego is one such model that people point to as a Web-based, online journal; the MinnPost and Twin Cities Daily Planet in Minneapolis-St. Paul point toward a new model. I think that there are experiments that are taking place locally. Of course, Walter Isaacson recently pointed toward the possibility of micropayments , and that would follow the OhMy News model of South Korea to some extent.
People also have raised the question of philanthropic support. Paul Starr recently wrote an important piece in the New Republic that said we might have to and perhaps we ought to be looking not simply at non-profit models but large philanthropies as a model for sustaining more traditional journalism and reporting. I think there’s validity, potentially, to all of those models and almost certainly ones that we haven’t thought about yet. I probably would throw our own Madison Commons model into the mix as well, where there’s an active effort to go out and organize the community to report on itself, to supplement the reporting of the mainstream news organizations. We had to train people to do that. So there are if not a thousand, at least dozens of flowers blooming as potential alternatives.
Having said that, and I hate to be very pessimistic but I think I am realistic in saying that all of those are very fragile. I am not convinced that the philanthropic sector, which of course is under significant economic pressure right now like every other institution, is going to step up to the degree necessary to replace something like the role of robust local journalism in the United States. The Voice of San Diego model is working at some levels; it’s having some significant success. But it’s also having some trouble sustaining itself economically. They’re also relying on philanthropy and the public radio model; that is part of their business model. But, they’re struggling. Madison Commons struggles because people work [at other jobs], for example, and journalism is real work. People don’t necessarily want to do the work of journalists. So it’s hard to have citizen reporters replace professional reporters on any kind of scale. I’m not that sanguine that any of these experiments that are being tried are necessarily going to succeed. I don’t think there’s enough money there. I don’t think that micropayments are going to be sufficient to support local newsrooms, although that could change.
Ironically, this goes with a question about the future, if and I think unfortunately when newspapers actually start to collapse in the United States as opposed to limp along so that – to go back to my ecological metaphor we have the actual death of a population as opposed to simply the war of each against all for a more limited resource pool – once we’ve cleared the field we might see new ways of combining display ad revenue, micropayments, various public-private subsidies and so on, that might support a new kind of local journalism. But we don’t know what those are yet. Some of the models that we’ve seen are very creative and important experiments. By no means am I putting them down because they are not economically sustainable – but they aren’t economically sustainable. I’m not sure what will happen. It’s possible that – and I think this goes to another question – but it’s not clear to me that the structure of civic life that we have in the United States at this point demands or will support local journalism. It may be that we’ve just moved on from there historically.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Jan Schaffer Question 1
The Pew Center for Civic Journalism helped in defining civic journalism by funding certain projects. When proposals from news organizations reached the Pew Center, what operational components did you look for in deciding that it was a project worthy of funding as a citizen journalism effort? What sorts of suggestions did you give to organizations to help make their work more “civic” in nature?
The possibilities for doing journalism that could engage the public in new and different ways expanded between 1993 and 2002, and so the kinds of things we funded at the Pew Center for Civic Journalism also changed and expanded over the decade and they moved away from just funding enterprise projects. We looked for a diversity of projects, a diversity of news outlets, geographic diversity, fresh topics, fresh approaches to covering the topics and new ideas for involving citizens.
We started with “convening projects” such as Tallahassee’s Public Agenda project that gathered citizens in the statehouse to wrestle with a future agenda for the city. We funded bottom-up projects like Charlotte’s “Taking Back our Neighborhoods” that involved citizen in framing the root causes of crime in the city as the starting point for the journalism.
With the publication of the first edition of our “Tapping Civic Life” guide later in the ’90’s, a joint project with Richard Harwood, we began to look for civic mapping projects that made civic journalism a daily (not a project) enterprise that called for going out into neighborhoods, visiting so-called “third places” and talking to so-called community “catalysts” and “connectors.” It’s gratifying how frequently I come across people today still using those terms.
By the end of the decade we were funding and rewarding with the Batten Awards for Excellence in Civic Journalism projects that sought public engagement through digital entry points, such as New Hampshire Public Radio’s Tax Calculator or the Everett Herald’s Waterfront Renaissance clickable map.
We sought to have the projects operate independently with no intervention from a funder, which in my view is not appropriate.
The possibilities for doing journalism that could engage the public in new and different ways expanded between 1993 and 2002, and so the kinds of things we funded at the Pew Center for Civic Journalism also changed and expanded over the decade and they moved away from just funding enterprise projects. We looked for a diversity of projects, a diversity of news outlets, geographic diversity, fresh topics, fresh approaches to covering the topics and new ideas for involving citizens.
We started with “convening projects” such as Tallahassee’s Public Agenda project that gathered citizens in the statehouse to wrestle with a future agenda for the city. We funded bottom-up projects like Charlotte’s “Taking Back our Neighborhoods” that involved citizen in framing the root causes of crime in the city as the starting point for the journalism.
With the publication of the first edition of our “Tapping Civic Life” guide later in the ’90’s, a joint project with Richard Harwood, we began to look for civic mapping projects that made civic journalism a daily (not a project) enterprise that called for going out into neighborhoods, visiting so-called “third places” and talking to so-called community “catalysts” and “connectors.” It’s gratifying how frequently I come across people today still using those terms.
By the end of the decade we were funding and rewarding with the Batten Awards for Excellence in Civic Journalism projects that sought public engagement through digital entry points, such as New Hampshire Public Radio’s Tax Calculator or the Everett Herald’s Waterfront Renaissance clickable map.
We sought to have the projects operate independently with no intervention from a funder, which in my view is not appropriate.
Jan Schaffer Question 2
Moving from directing the Pew Center for Civic Journalism to executive director of the J-lab, you have gone from working with mainstream news organizations in trying to improve public life to helping citizens as well as journalists to use digital technologies to report about and engage in public life. Do you think this change in your own role is indicative of any diminishing role of mainstream news organizations in enhancing public life?
No. As with the expansion of the kinds of projects we funded through the Pew Center, my work in the digital news sphere is reflective of the expanding possibilities for enhancing citizen engagement through new media venues. I also continue to work with legacy news organizations and will soon launch a major project with mainstream outlets, so I don’t really see a “change” in my role. I also think that while there are promising possibilities for news and information that is gathered and produced by non-professional journalists, most citizens are dismayed at the cutbacks curtailing journalism at so many mainstream news organizations.
No. As with the expansion of the kinds of projects we funded through the Pew Center, my work in the digital news sphere is reflective of the expanding possibilities for enhancing citizen engagement through new media venues. I also continue to work with legacy news organizations and will soon launch a major project with mainstream outlets, so I don’t really see a “change” in my role. I also think that while there are promising possibilities for news and information that is gathered and produced by non-professional journalists, most citizens are dismayed at the cutbacks curtailing journalism at so many mainstream news organizations.
Jan Schaffer Question 3
Moving on to some more general discussion of the field, “citizen” journalism is also known by a number of other names. Which one do you prefer, and why?
I prefer the term “new media makers” and J-Lab will soon be launching a Community Media Toolkit by that name. These new media makers are involved in both random and organized “acts of journalism.” Random as in the posting of eyewitness videos or photos of some catastrophic event. Organized as in launching a community news site that has an architecture of topics or beats. Not all citizen media makers aspire to do “journalism.” Some, such as individual bloggers, often don’t do journalism at all. Others produce content that has a lot of journalistic DNA. We do a disservice to emerging players in the new media ecosystem and to our own understanding of what’s evolving by lumping them all under one rubric. A broader name allows us to start to distinguish and codify emerging media players.
I prefer the term “new media makers” and J-Lab will soon be launching a Community Media Toolkit by that name. These new media makers are involved in both random and organized “acts of journalism.” Random as in the posting of eyewitness videos or photos of some catastrophic event. Organized as in launching a community news site that has an architecture of topics or beats. Not all citizen media makers aspire to do “journalism.” Some, such as individual bloggers, often don’t do journalism at all. Others produce content that has a lot of journalistic DNA. We do a disservice to emerging players in the new media ecosystem and to our own understanding of what’s evolving by lumping them all under one rubric. A broader name allows us to start to distinguish and codify emerging media players.
Jan Schaffer Question 4
Is citizen journalism necessarily civic journalism, or is there a distinction between the two?
Civic journalism involves journalists using the media to engage citizens in public issues – by deliberating on public agendas, framing issues, civic mapping. And often the journalists aspired to engage the citizens in the journalism, more than the community.
So-called citizen journalism involves citizens engaging in the community by using media as a form of civic participation. In other words, their acts of making media are the participation. They don’t seek to cover community; they seek to build it. They are entirely different in my view in terms of motivations and conventions. They sometimes can have similar outcomes. But they cover communities from the inside-out, not from the outside-in. And I’d suggest that we are already seeing that they do their journalism much differently than traditional journalists.
Civic journalism involves journalists using the media to engage citizens in public issues – by deliberating on public agendas, framing issues, civic mapping. And often the journalists aspired to engage the citizens in the journalism, more than the community.
So-called citizen journalism involves citizens engaging in the community by using media as a form of civic participation. In other words, their acts of making media are the participation. They don’t seek to cover community; they seek to build it. They are entirely different in my view in terms of motivations and conventions. They sometimes can have similar outcomes. But they cover communities from the inside-out, not from the outside-in. And I’d suggest that we are already seeing that they do their journalism much differently than traditional journalists.
Jan Schaffer Question 5
If there is a distinction, what would have to happen for citizen journalism to become public journalism?
I see the content produced by many new media makers and the very act of producing that content as an act of civic participation, not an act of journalism. So if the goal of public journalism was civic participation, why would you want so-called citizen journalism to have to be intermediated, which seems to me would be the end result if it “became public journalism?”
I see the content produced by many new media makers and the very act of producing that content as an act of civic participation, not an act of journalism. So if the goal of public journalism was civic participation, why would you want so-called citizen journalism to have to be intermediated, which seems to me would be the end result if it “became public journalism?”
Jan Schaffer Question 6
Beyond discussing distinctions, it appears citizen journalism and public journalism share an approach: they both intend to place the citizen closer to defining and relaying news. In light of this commonality, but understanding that public journalism dates back about 20 years, how do you see the principles and practices of public journalism informing citizen journalism?
I don’t think “citizen journalists” have much, if any, knowledge of civic journalism or its principles and practices. It is not of their world. Again, they care about community, not journalism per se. They care about information that can build capacity for members of a community to elect wise leaders or solve community problems or become knowledgeable about community issues. If it’s in the form of a news story, that’s fine. If it’s just information, that’s fine, too. They care about journalism only in the sense that it is largely absent in their communities or their available media is unsatisfactory. And they now have some digital tools so they can do something about that.
Far more apparent is how the principles, practices and language of civic journalism are met with such an intuitive understanding and a comfort level among new-media practitioners in mainstream newsrooms, those who are charged with constructing participatory and interactive forms of journalism. Just on a lark I searched in mid-March 2009 for mentions of civic and public journalism in the blogosphere. There were 28 for civic and 26 for public journalism tracked by Technorati just in the previous five months. And they included things like an Online Journalism Review article that mentioned the thinking behind London School of Economics professor and former broadcast journalist Charlie Beckett’s idea of “networked journalism.”
“The idea is to take the best parts of the civic journalism and public journalism movements and sync these up with the possibilities of the Web,” wrote the author, Nikki Usher. “Through networked journalism, Beckett urges legacy journalists to think of themselves as participating in somewhat of a pro-am kind of relationship, where mainstream journalists share the process of production with everyday citizens.”
Also of note, and largely unheralded, is how the innovators from the heyday of civic journalism have continued as leading innovators and thinkers of today’s journalism. Take Kate Marymont, managing editor and one of the key drivers behind the Springfield News-Leader’s “The Good Community” initiative in 1995. She went on to make major strides in dispatching mojos or mobile journalists in Fort Myers, Fla., then broke a major municipal story there using crowdsourcing. Now she’s replacing retiring Phil Currie as vice president for Gannett’s U.S. Community Publishing Division. Or take Wendy Warren and Ellen Foley, both drivers behind the “Rethinking Philadelphia” initiative in the late ‘90s at the Philadelphia Daily News. Foley went on to become editor of the Wisconsin State Journal and open up her front pages to reader suggestions for stories. Warren is now vice president and editor of Philly.com and the leader of one of the most recent quintessentially civic journalism projects: TheNextMayor.com, which involved citizens in the 2007 mayor elections. The project used a textbook civic journalism template and it’s unfortunate that it was not archived online. Or Steve Smith, one of Buzz Merritt’s protégés at the Wichita Eagle, who went on to webcast the Spokane Spokesman-Review’s daily news meetings and engage citizens in the paper’s journalism with a raft of transparency initiatives and editor blogs. Or Mark Briggs, a Batten Award winner for the Everett Herald’s Waterfront Renaissance clickable map that engaged 2,500 residents in redevelopment. He went on to write the best-selling Journalism 2.0 (which J-Lab commissioned and published). Or Chris Satullo, renowned in Philadelphia for bringing “Citizen Voices” and other initiatives to the editorial page, who just moved to WHYY-TV to launch a new initiative. Or Lew Friedland, who has not only authored books about civic journalism but launched one of the first citizen driving community news initiatives in 2005, MadisonCommons.org. Just to name a few.
Yesterday’s civic journalists are today’s new media innovators.
I don’t think “citizen journalists” have much, if any, knowledge of civic journalism or its principles and practices. It is not of their world. Again, they care about community, not journalism per se. They care about information that can build capacity for members of a community to elect wise leaders or solve community problems or become knowledgeable about community issues. If it’s in the form of a news story, that’s fine. If it’s just information, that’s fine, too. They care about journalism only in the sense that it is largely absent in their communities or their available media is unsatisfactory. And they now have some digital tools so they can do something about that.
Far more apparent is how the principles, practices and language of civic journalism are met with such an intuitive understanding and a comfort level among new-media practitioners in mainstream newsrooms, those who are charged with constructing participatory and interactive forms of journalism. Just on a lark I searched in mid-March 2009 for mentions of civic and public journalism in the blogosphere. There were 28 for civic and 26 for public journalism tracked by Technorati just in the previous five months. And they included things like an Online Journalism Review article that mentioned the thinking behind London School of Economics professor and former broadcast journalist Charlie Beckett’s idea of “networked journalism.”
“The idea is to take the best parts of the civic journalism and public journalism movements and sync these up with the possibilities of the Web,” wrote the author, Nikki Usher. “Through networked journalism, Beckett urges legacy journalists to think of themselves as participating in somewhat of a pro-am kind of relationship, where mainstream journalists share the process of production with everyday citizens.”
Also of note, and largely unheralded, is how the innovators from the heyday of civic journalism have continued as leading innovators and thinkers of today’s journalism. Take Kate Marymont, managing editor and one of the key drivers behind the Springfield News-Leader’s “The Good Community” initiative in 1995. She went on to make major strides in dispatching mojos or mobile journalists in Fort Myers, Fla., then broke a major municipal story there using crowdsourcing. Now she’s replacing retiring Phil Currie as vice president for Gannett’s U.S. Community Publishing Division. Or take Wendy Warren and Ellen Foley, both drivers behind the “Rethinking Philadelphia” initiative in the late ‘90s at the Philadelphia Daily News. Foley went on to become editor of the Wisconsin State Journal and open up her front pages to reader suggestions for stories. Warren is now vice president and editor of Philly.com and the leader of one of the most recent quintessentially civic journalism projects: TheNextMayor.com, which involved citizens in the 2007 mayor elections. The project used a textbook civic journalism template and it’s unfortunate that it was not archived online. Or Steve Smith, one of Buzz Merritt’s protégés at the Wichita Eagle, who went on to webcast the Spokane Spokesman-Review’s daily news meetings and engage citizens in the paper’s journalism with a raft of transparency initiatives and editor blogs. Or Mark Briggs, a Batten Award winner for the Everett Herald’s Waterfront Renaissance clickable map that engaged 2,500 residents in redevelopment. He went on to write the best-selling Journalism 2.0 (which J-Lab commissioned and published). Or Chris Satullo, renowned in Philadelphia for bringing “Citizen Voices” and other initiatives to the editorial page, who just moved to WHYY-TV to launch a new initiative. Or Lew Friedland, who has not only authored books about civic journalism but launched one of the first citizen driving community news initiatives in 2005, MadisonCommons.org. Just to name a few.
Yesterday’s civic journalists are today’s new media innovators.
Jan Schaffer Question 7
Do you see public journalism principles being articulated in participatory journalism in the current environment, i.e. are there any good examples?
Yes, I think founders of community news sites have been more willing to listen, akin to public listening. They have embraced games and interactive exercises as ways to elicit public input. They are more comfortable reporting not just what people say, but allowing them to clarify what they mean. I think they don’t use conflict to define news, which was always a caveat in the civic journalism world. And I think my previous answer addressed some of this.
Yes, I think founders of community news sites have been more willing to listen, akin to public listening. They have embraced games and interactive exercises as ways to elicit public input. They are more comfortable reporting not just what people say, but allowing them to clarify what they mean. I think they don’t use conflict to define news, which was always a caveat in the civic journalism world. And I think my previous answer addressed some of this.
Jan Schaffer Question 8
So far, what role do you see citizen media has played, in relation to mainstream news media, in enhancing public life in the U.S.? How about outside the U.S.?
I only focus on the U.S., although I think globalvoicesonline.org has been a great example overseas.
I only focus on the U.S., although I think globalvoicesonline.org has been a great example overseas.
Jan Schaffer Question 9
How do you measure the success of a citizen journalism Web site?
Do site operators feel they are making a difference in their community? Are the right eyeballs more than the number of eyeballs looking at the site because they need to hear the public’s concerns? Are community problems being addressed? Are more people challenging incumbents for public office? Do Republican candidates show up for site-sponsored candidate forums, even when they feel the site skews Democratic, yet they can’t point to any bias? Does voter turnout go up? Are more citizens willing to participate in generating content? Those are the kinds of civic impact measures that are important to citizen site operators. And we need to measure their success using metrics that are meaningful to them.
Do site operators feel they are making a difference in their community? Are the right eyeballs more than the number of eyeballs looking at the site because they need to hear the public’s concerns? Are community problems being addressed? Are more people challenging incumbents for public office? Do Republican candidates show up for site-sponsored candidate forums, even when they feel the site skews Democratic, yet they can’t point to any bias? Does voter turnout go up? Are more citizens willing to participate in generating content? Those are the kinds of civic impact measures that are important to citizen site operators. And we need to measure their success using metrics that are meaningful to them.
Jan Schaffer Question 10
Which citizen journalism sites do you consider to be the most influential? The most innovative?
You’d have to break down the sites into those produced by citizens with no journalism backgrounds and those produced by journalists who are no longer in professional newsrooms. And you’d need to differentiate individuals’ blogging platforms from community news sites. Again, I point to the dangers of an umbrella rubric that does not fit the developments. I have some favorites, but that doesn’t mean that they are the most influential or most innovative.
Voice of SanDiego.org is incredibly influential. So is NewHavenIndependent.org. NewCastleNOW.org is spritely and comprehensive. WestSeattleblog.com is very popular in Seattle. NewWest.net is in intriguing model.
You’d have to break down the sites into those produced by citizens with no journalism backgrounds and those produced by journalists who are no longer in professional newsrooms. And you’d need to differentiate individuals’ blogging platforms from community news sites. Again, I point to the dangers of an umbrella rubric that does not fit the developments. I have some favorites, but that doesn’t mean that they are the most influential or most innovative.
Voice of SanDiego.org is incredibly influential. So is NewHavenIndependent.org. NewCastleNOW.org is spritely and comprehensive. WestSeattleblog.com is very popular in Seattle. NewWest.net is in intriguing model.
Jan Schaffer Question 11
What will citizen journalism look like in 10, 20 or 50 years?
I just don’t know and haven’t really thought about it. I’m more interested in mapping various developments in the new media ecosystem. Sorry.
I just don’t know and haven’t really thought about it. I’m more interested in mapping various developments in the new media ecosystem. Sorry.
Tanni Haas: Question 1
You, and other scholars such as Jay Rosen, Tom Warhover and Mark Deuze have mentioned that traditional journalists will need to come to terms with the inevitability of news construction through the online world. One consistent thread in these observations is that the online world encourages dialogue as a vital component of relaying and understanding news. This dialogic aspect is, of course, antithetical to traditional journalistic principles and practices of detached, fact-oriented reporting. How do you see both public journalism and citizen journalism building a bridge that will allow traditional journalists to successfully adjust and contribute to a more dialogic news product?
For public journalism, I think the challenge is to show traditional journalists that it is indeed possible to create a dialogic news product which relies on the participation of a wide spectrum of citizen voices, and that such citizen participation enriches the news product in a variety of ways. I am thinking here in particular of the many race-relations initiatives that public journalism has been involved with over the years. These initiatives have sought the input of people of different racial backgrounds, and the resulting news coverage has clearly shown that there is no “detached” way of reporting on race-relations and no single, authoritative “fact” of race that people can agree upon across racial divides. Indeed, these initiatives clearly show that journalists’ reporting is inherently influenced by their own racial affinities, and that citizens’ views on given race-related issues are refracted through their particular racial identities. For citizen journalism, I think the challenge is to show traditional journalists that the distinction between “news” and “views” (or “facts” and “values”) is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, virtually all citizen journalism initiatives show that citizens’ choice of issues and internal discussion of those issues are grounded in their particular views on given issues.
For public journalism, I think the challenge is to show traditional journalists that it is indeed possible to create a dialogic news product which relies on the participation of a wide spectrum of citizen voices, and that such citizen participation enriches the news product in a variety of ways. I am thinking here in particular of the many race-relations initiatives that public journalism has been involved with over the years. These initiatives have sought the input of people of different racial backgrounds, and the resulting news coverage has clearly shown that there is no “detached” way of reporting on race-relations and no single, authoritative “fact” of race that people can agree upon across racial divides. Indeed, these initiatives clearly show that journalists’ reporting is inherently influenced by their own racial affinities, and that citizens’ views on given race-related issues are refracted through their particular racial identities. For citizen journalism, I think the challenge is to show traditional journalists that the distinction between “news” and “views” (or “facts” and “values”) is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, virtually all citizen journalism initiatives show that citizens’ choice of issues and internal discussion of those issues are grounded in their particular views on given issues.
Tanni Haas: Question 2
In the same vein, what opportunities do you think technology, especially online interaction, can offer for developing the “conversational commons” that you propose as a means for public journalism to be more effective?
I think that online interaction can offer an incredible means of furthering the idea of a “conversational commons.” Through online interaction, public journalists would be able to solicit a wide spectrum of citizen voices, offer citizens opportunities to elaborate on issues of particular concern to them, and encourage citizens to deliberate about those issues with others. The challenge, however, is to moderate those online interactions in such a way that they do not disintegrate into brute shouting matches – to ensure that citizens genuinely listen to one another rather than merely “shout” their own views as loud as possible. We know from the vast literature on computer-mediated interaction more generally that the anonymous nature of online encounters does not always bring out the best in people. Put differently, the challenge for public journalists would be to ensure that citizens’ online interactions resemble as much as possible the best of offline encounters. Here public journalists could find much inspiration in the many offline encounters that have been organized over the years in the form of focus groups, roundtable discussions, and town hall meetings.
I think that online interaction can offer an incredible means of furthering the idea of a “conversational commons.” Through online interaction, public journalists would be able to solicit a wide spectrum of citizen voices, offer citizens opportunities to elaborate on issues of particular concern to them, and encourage citizens to deliberate about those issues with others. The challenge, however, is to moderate those online interactions in such a way that they do not disintegrate into brute shouting matches – to ensure that citizens genuinely listen to one another rather than merely “shout” their own views as loud as possible. We know from the vast literature on computer-mediated interaction more generally that the anonymous nature of online encounters does not always bring out the best in people. Put differently, the challenge for public journalists would be to ensure that citizens’ online interactions resemble as much as possible the best of offline encounters. Here public journalists could find much inspiration in the many offline encounters that have been organized over the years in the form of focus groups, roundtable discussions, and town hall meetings.
Tanni Haas: Question 3
Also as part of this redefinition of news, the mainstream news media are giving some opportunities for users to publish their stories. Do you think this involvement of users helps achieve the goal of enhancing public life? If so, in what ways?
In theory, I don’t think there is any limit to how much user-generated content could contribute to the enhancement of public life. In practice, however, I am very disappointed with how mainstream news media are soliciting such content. Instead of encouraging citizens to comment on a wide spectrum of public issues of concern to them, most mainstream news media operate in terms of a journalistic division of labor whereby journalists assign themselves the responsibility of covering properly public, political issues while encouraging citizens to cover private, personal issues.
In theory, I don’t think there is any limit to how much user-generated content could contribute to the enhancement of public life. In practice, however, I am very disappointed with how mainstream news media are soliciting such content. Instead of encouraging citizens to comment on a wide spectrum of public issues of concern to them, most mainstream news media operate in terms of a journalistic division of labor whereby journalists assign themselves the responsibility of covering properly public, political issues while encouraging citizens to cover private, personal issues.
Tanni Haas: Question 4
The Internet seems to be a medium that privileges the formation of communities of interest. How are these similar to and different from geographic communities? Will this difference shape the kinds of public problems on which these communities (with the assistance of journalists) might work?
While I realize that the distinction between “communities of interest” and “geographic communities” is a common one, I find this distinction misleading, even suspect. Indeed, I would argue that, even in the smallest of localities, you will find social groups with unequal degrees of political power. In this sense, I would prefer to dispense with the notion of “community” altogether, under the assumption that there are no substantive values which unite given localities, but rather that various social groups within those localities have different, and often conflicting, political interests. A much more accurate and productive way of describing given localities would be to distinguish between different “publics” whose interests might conflict but could be mediated through adherence to the procedural, but not substantive, value of rational-critical deliberation. To return to my answer to a previous question, the challenge for journalists would be to acknowledge those divisions among citizens, and then to try to facilitate the kinds of online interactions that would allow all citizens, whether politically powerful or not, to voice their particular concerns – and to hear each other out. Indeed, one of the great sins of mainstream journalism continues to be the glossing over of political conflicts of interest under the assumption that we live in a classless society characterized by common values.
While I realize that the distinction between “communities of interest” and “geographic communities” is a common one, I find this distinction misleading, even suspect. Indeed, I would argue that, even in the smallest of localities, you will find social groups with unequal degrees of political power. In this sense, I would prefer to dispense with the notion of “community” altogether, under the assumption that there are no substantive values which unite given localities, but rather that various social groups within those localities have different, and often conflicting, political interests. A much more accurate and productive way of describing given localities would be to distinguish between different “publics” whose interests might conflict but could be mediated through adherence to the procedural, but not substantive, value of rational-critical deliberation. To return to my answer to a previous question, the challenge for journalists would be to acknowledge those divisions among citizens, and then to try to facilitate the kinds of online interactions that would allow all citizens, whether politically powerful or not, to voice their particular concerns – and to hear each other out. Indeed, one of the great sins of mainstream journalism continues to be the glossing over of political conflicts of interest under the assumption that we live in a classless society characterized by common values.
Tanni Haas: Question 5
Can an online conversation produce a discussion that looks anything like a Habermasian deliberation? If not, what would journalists have to do to prompt such an online conversation in their local communities?
I certainly think it would be possible for journalists to facilitate online discussions that resemble the ideals of Habermasian deliberation. However, it would require journalists to be much more mindful than they currently appear to be of what they are trying to accomplish and to take a much more active role in moderating those discussions. Most importantly, journalists would need to ensure that as wide a spectrum of citizens as possible is included in given discussions. This might require journalists to offer citizens various incentives to participate, especially to those who rarely participate in such discussions, whether in the form of financial remuneration or a promise to make use of their input in subsequent coverage. Second, journalists would need to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in those discussions, including by curtailing the contributions of those who tend to dominate the discussions and encouraging those who are silent to speak up as much as possible. Finally, journalists would need to encourage citizens to not only state their views clearly and comprehensively – and genuinely listen to those of others – but also to state their reasons for espousing certain views. Indeed, without extensive and reciprocal reason-giving, citizens could not be said to engage in rational-critical deliberation in the Habermasian sense of the term.
I certainly think it would be possible for journalists to facilitate online discussions that resemble the ideals of Habermasian deliberation. However, it would require journalists to be much more mindful than they currently appear to be of what they are trying to accomplish and to take a much more active role in moderating those discussions. Most importantly, journalists would need to ensure that as wide a spectrum of citizens as possible is included in given discussions. This might require journalists to offer citizens various incentives to participate, especially to those who rarely participate in such discussions, whether in the form of financial remuneration or a promise to make use of their input in subsequent coverage. Second, journalists would need to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in those discussions, including by curtailing the contributions of those who tend to dominate the discussions and encouraging those who are silent to speak up as much as possible. Finally, journalists would need to encourage citizens to not only state their views clearly and comprehensively – and genuinely listen to those of others – but also to state their reasons for espousing certain views. Indeed, without extensive and reciprocal reason-giving, citizens could not be said to engage in rational-critical deliberation in the Habermasian sense of the term.
Tanni Haas: Question 6
Following up on that, how would this activity be similar to and different from what public journalists did in the past (convening meetings, moderating discussions, etc.) to provoke such conversations?
This activity would be very similar to what public journalists have done in the best of offline encounters, whether in the form of focus groups, roundtable discussions, or town hall meetings. In many of these offline encounters, public journalists have done precisely what I mention above: worked to include as wide a spectrum of citizens as possible, ensured that all citizens were offered an equal opportunity to participate, and encouraged citizens to state their views and reasons for espousing those views. The added challenge online is, of course, the strong measure of anonymity as well as the asynchronous nature of the discussions. As previously mentioned, we know from the vast literature on computer-mediated interaction more generally that it can be difficult to moderate online discussions in a democratic manner. A few participants often try to monopolize the discussion, couch their views in the strongest possible terms while paying little attention to those of others, and offer little, if any, evidence, in support of their views. Moreover, the asynchronous nature of online discussion could make it difficult, although by no means impossible, for journalists to maintain a strong sense of continuity. Simply put, in contrast to offline encounters, where participants are spatially and temporally co-present, offline discussions occur among participants who may be widely dispersed in space and whose contributions are offered over a long time span. This is likely to make for a somewhat disjointed discussion whose conversational “red thread” can be difficult to locate at times.
This activity would be very similar to what public journalists have done in the best of offline encounters, whether in the form of focus groups, roundtable discussions, or town hall meetings. In many of these offline encounters, public journalists have done precisely what I mention above: worked to include as wide a spectrum of citizens as possible, ensured that all citizens were offered an equal opportunity to participate, and encouraged citizens to state their views and reasons for espousing those views. The added challenge online is, of course, the strong measure of anonymity as well as the asynchronous nature of the discussions. As previously mentioned, we know from the vast literature on computer-mediated interaction more generally that it can be difficult to moderate online discussions in a democratic manner. A few participants often try to monopolize the discussion, couch their views in the strongest possible terms while paying little attention to those of others, and offer little, if any, evidence, in support of their views. Moreover, the asynchronous nature of online discussion could make it difficult, although by no means impossible, for journalists to maintain a strong sense of continuity. Simply put, in contrast to offline encounters, where participants are spatially and temporally co-present, offline discussions occur among participants who may be widely dispersed in space and whose contributions are offered over a long time span. This is likely to make for a somewhat disjointed discussion whose conversational “red thread” can be difficult to locate at times.
Tanni Haas: Question 7
In The Pursuit of Public Journalism you argue that citizen media as currently configured are not contributing much to creating that “conversational commons.” But COULD they? What would have to happen for venues such as blogs and hyperlocal sites to meet traditional public journalism goals such as fostering effective deliberation and problem-solving of public issues?
It is true that citizen media, notably hyper-local sites, do not at present contribute much to a “conversational commons.” The most serious impediment, as I note above, is the prevailing journalistic division of labor whereby journalists take on responsibility for reporting on properly public, political issues while encouraging citizens to report on private, personal concerns. This is a relatively easy problem to rectify, however. Instead of operating their sites in terms of this journalistic division of labor, journalists could simply dispense with this distinction and encourage citizens to contribute reporting and commentary on all public issues of concern to them. As to the question of what would need to happen to blogs to meet traditional public journalism goals of fostering effective public deliberation and problem-solving, I believe the main challenges are to gain much more independence of mainstream news media and engage in genuine deliberation across ideological divides. As I detail in my book, the empirical research literature clearly shows that blogs tend to mimic the news reporting and commentary of mainstream news media sites and primarily inspire deliberation among people of similar political persuasions.
It is true that citizen media, notably hyper-local sites, do not at present contribute much to a “conversational commons.” The most serious impediment, as I note above, is the prevailing journalistic division of labor whereby journalists take on responsibility for reporting on properly public, political issues while encouraging citizens to report on private, personal concerns. This is a relatively easy problem to rectify, however. Instead of operating their sites in terms of this journalistic division of labor, journalists could simply dispense with this distinction and encourage citizens to contribute reporting and commentary on all public issues of concern to them. As to the question of what would need to happen to blogs to meet traditional public journalism goals of fostering effective public deliberation and problem-solving, I believe the main challenges are to gain much more independence of mainstream news media and engage in genuine deliberation across ideological divides. As I detail in my book, the empirical research literature clearly shows that blogs tend to mimic the news reporting and commentary of mainstream news media sites and primarily inspire deliberation among people of similar political persuasions.
Tanni Haas: Question 8
Following up on that, could facilitation and guidance of citizen journalism efforts by representatives of traditional news organizations in a new sort of “pro-am” approach help bring about this elevation of the citizen media?
I am not convinced that a so-called “pro-am” approach to news coverage is the best remedy for the problems that I mention above. To the extent that weblog writers tend to mimic the news reporting and commentary of mainstream news media, rather than engage in their own, independent news coverage, I believe the best approach would be to try to keep mainstream news media and blogs as separate as possible. If we are to broaden the domain of news coverage beyond that provided by mainstream news media, it would be much better to encourage weblog writers to build up their own, independent news gathering and reporting entities. In the best of worlds, mainstream news media and weblog writers would not collaborate on news coverage. Rather, weblog writers would become so independent and powerful that their news coverage would force mainstream news media to truly take note of them and to enlarge their own news coverage in light of their contributions. In Habermasian terms, the multitude of weblogs in the “periphery” of the political public sphere would become so powerful that they would influence the functioning of the mainstream news media occupying the “center” of the political public sphere.
I am not convinced that a so-called “pro-am” approach to news coverage is the best remedy for the problems that I mention above. To the extent that weblog writers tend to mimic the news reporting and commentary of mainstream news media, rather than engage in their own, independent news coverage, I believe the best approach would be to try to keep mainstream news media and blogs as separate as possible. If we are to broaden the domain of news coverage beyond that provided by mainstream news media, it would be much better to encourage weblog writers to build up their own, independent news gathering and reporting entities. In the best of worlds, mainstream news media and weblog writers would not collaborate on news coverage. Rather, weblog writers would become so independent and powerful that their news coverage would force mainstream news media to truly take note of them and to enlarge their own news coverage in light of their contributions. In Habermasian terms, the multitude of weblogs in the “periphery” of the political public sphere would become so powerful that they would influence the functioning of the mainstream news media occupying the “center” of the political public sphere.
Tanni Haas: Question 9
In this same book, you discuss how many forms of online journalism, instead of encouraging or facilitating public deliberation, tend to privilege news content and discussion around an assumption of shared values and goals. You point out this leaves many community members out of the stories. This is a striking observation, as public journalism also criticized journalists as working from shared values and goals that resulted in news content that was disengaged from what citizens cared about. So, while the technology of news gathering and distribution changes, and, over time, the professionalism of the “reporter” may be different, we are still left with the inevitable place of values. What lessons does public journalism have to offer citizen journalism on this issue?
The most important lesson public journalism has to offer citizen journalism with respect to values is that it should not assume there are any overarching, substantive values to which all citizens subscribe. Indeed, any reference to shared values and, by implication, shared political interests is bound to privilege certain dominant values and political interests over other more marginalized ones. That said, to encourage and facilitate genuine public deliberation, citizen journalism ought to operate in terms of the procedural, but not substantive, value of rational-critical deliberation: the idea that all citizens ought to be offered the opportunity to participate in public deliberation, and that all views and the evidence offered in support of those views ought to made available to criticism, evaluation and continuous refinement in the light of other views and supporting evidence.
The most important lesson public journalism has to offer citizen journalism with respect to values is that it should not assume there are any overarching, substantive values to which all citizens subscribe. Indeed, any reference to shared values and, by implication, shared political interests is bound to privilege certain dominant values and political interests over other more marginalized ones. That said, to encourage and facilitate genuine public deliberation, citizen journalism ought to operate in terms of the procedural, but not substantive, value of rational-critical deliberation: the idea that all citizens ought to be offered the opportunity to participate in public deliberation, and that all views and the evidence offered in support of those views ought to made available to criticism, evaluation and continuous refinement in the light of other views and supporting evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)