McChesney, Nichols, and Gillmor all share a complaint about corporate media: They all believe the concentration of media ownership, and the for-profit drive of media conglomerates have weakened the news media’s ability to serve a democratic citizenry. While McChesney and Nichols call for more citizen journalism, placing their faith in the people, Gillmor calls for more electronic, decentered (one-to-one, many-to-many) journalism, placing his faith in technology. Gillmor contends that the citizen journalism movement really started with bloggers writing about 9-11. Look at a one of the blogs inspired by this event and its aftershock:
http://www.911truth.org/
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.instapundit.com/
Do these sites meet McChesney’s and Nichols’s hopes for citizen journalism? Using specific references to their book and to the site, explain why. Would this be possible without the electronic medium? Could instapundit happen in print?
I know that this is beating a dead horse to death, but like heather and shiri I agree with Davids opinion of the effectiveness of blogs. Although I have found the previously assigned blog readings to be boring and uninspired, I felt quite differently about the overall atmosphere of instapundit.com. The standards of Nichols and McChesney with regards to citizen journalism are pretty much achieved in this form of media. Its main appeal is the ease with which the people are able to respond to opinions and access informative links. In print media, this is a much more difficult feat to achieve because it is very time consuming and frustrating. Thus, the internet is the medium through which sites such as instapundit.com are able to shine and thrive.
I agree that these blogs meet McChesney’s and Nichols’s standards for citizen journalism. I also like the style of Instapundit with its comments section available after the entry. This is something that is unachievable in print media no matter how you look at it. Even if you write a letter to the editor, they can't publish or respond to all of them. It also does not leave any room for real discussion among readers. It's just a short discussion between one reader and an editor even though they may choose to publish letters written from readers with conflicting viewpoints.
i agree with david that these informal blog sites like instapundit.com that offer links are an excellent way for people to get additional info and perspectives on a situation quickly and conveniently. print media, though it can type links, cannot get the readers to the additional info quickly. i agree with londie that editorial sections could be expanded and footnotes added, but the likelyhood that someone will, after reading a paper, go to the internet and read additional info is less than if someone is already on the internet and simply clicks on a link.
No the instaput journalism could not be attained with print. It is impossible. However, the editorial quality of these blogs and the messages they send could be attained through print. I think Gillmor and McChesney and Nichols seem to agree on citizen agency and citizen journalism. Gillmor just thinks it is more likely for the internet to actually work in this mode because nobody needs a press in order to put forth their thoughts. The Internet is free to print on and free to access. It seems like a good idea. However the 911 blog is boring. So good luck with that. I think everyone could take a lesson from slashdot in fun Internet news production. What they don't touch on as much is the type of citizen that would engage in media creation. Most of them are young or politically active or both with strong opinions so getting objective journalism from these sources seems just as difficult as from the regular media.
I find riverbendblog.blogspot.com fascinating. I've never encountered such an easily accessible straightforward account of life in Iraq. Her descriptions of the situation are riveting and provide a rich context. She really paints a full portrait of what it's like over there, something I doubt we'd find in traditional media.
I really like the riverbendblog because it is something different and interesting. I don't doubt that reporters doing interviews try to maintain the true context of an interview, but with this blog, you truly get what SHE wants you to hear and not just what is good for viewers, morale, or ratings. I just felt like I was having a conversation with the girl when I was reading this. It seemed very personal and honest. I really liked it. It also provides another perspective, like I talked about in my paper. It is differnt from what we are used to hearing on CNN and ABC world news. Like I said, I'm sure they mean well, but this is just so much more personal and honest feeling.
Just a cool post from a local blog, about blogging and journalist protections, complete with quotes from our own trusty legislator John Cornyn:
http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=651
Also - an article on public ratings for government and big business - both are low low low. Read to see what they think about the media.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051025/ap_on_re_us/public_pessimism
Several tenets of the McChesney-Nichols media reform plan operate very effectively in both the format and style of 911truth.org. M&N call for a coast to coast network of public tv/radio stations to balance out the ever merging voices of corporately owned media. Internet sites like 911truth take this principle and apply it to a specific goal: a national and global debate over the mainstream media's limited representation of dissent and their omission of emerging evidence that might warrant that dissent. Even if a site similar to 911truth does not focus on or explicitly make an argument for media reform, they are certainly contributing to that argument just by being there. 911truth wants more public debate and less government/corporate collusion in our media's coverage of the WTC attack. Their blog serves as a good example of where printed media ought to head. Blogs can use external links to filter through the glut of available "news," feature commentary from site editors and readers, update and correct errors as they are found, and guide participating citizen journalists toward other avenues of activism. The flow of information between "journalist" and "audience" (Gillmor anticipates the inevitable blurring of this distinction) is as fluid as the page-design itself. While it may not be possible for newspapers to do all of this in real-time, they could place more emphasis on responding to the concerns of their readers--emphasis in the form of an expanded editorial section and article footnotes that say, "post your comments at yourpaper.com/article/comments." Also, M&N's concern for the lack of cooperation among like-minded activist groups might dissolve in light of one proactive blogger's ability to connect many groups through a series of external links. "Which links?" "Those links." So easy, no searching, all there in the header.
Gillmor wants the American citizen to tell him why she knows more than he does about any given public issue and the internet allows this dialogue to take place in the void where space and time once marginalized so many citizen voices. Why M&N do not engage the internet's better advantages is not readily apparent to me. Maybe it's because the internet, even if it is the wave of the future, is still a concept and a tool to which some people do not have unlimited, easy access. Economic and cultural disparity have their place in defining our current technological divide. Here, Gillmor's "one-to-one, many-to-many" leaves little agency for those who are left after you subtract "many" from "all." If only there were a way for newspapers and bloggers to work together…(!)
In Our Media, M and N bemoan how coporate media effectively shut out Ralph Nader from the presidential debates, resulting in a 'duller-than-dirt agreeathon', which provoked televisions across the nations to tune in to Sport Center instead. So, it would appear that while media must balance it's corporate interests with fair and balanced news, it must also be entertaining. Considering that, you might see why I did not think that 911truth.org effectively grasps the publics attention. I apologize for my language, but what in the flying fuck can a Christian theologian tell us about a conspiracy that involves explosives in bringing down the WTC? And further, why the hell should I care that the Icelandic-Green-Left Party isn't digging Bush's pet war? I'm much more inclined to listen to a drag-rat's aimless rantings about conspiracy in the intials of G.W.B. than to even consider what minority of a minority party thinks. If "the current caliber of journalism is decidely unsatisfactory for a democratic society" than I can't imagine than 911truth.org is the panacea. However, it's not corporate, and I can appreciate that. In fact, the mere fact that the site moderators had the freedom to put up something that is so inconsequential is in it self hope for curtailing corporate interests in the media we see every day. That said, some of the content of the site is meaningless drivel, not too far removed from the "trivial and mindless stories" that M and N claim media moguls use to keep the public sleeping. The true difference, I think, is that the contributor of these stunnig articles actually intended these tidbits to shake the public from its slumber.
In addition, and as londi mentioned above, the site does not simply encourage activism as much as it pours gasoline-TNT-plutonium on the fires of those who feel 9/11 was a major oversight. M and N claim that many of the problems of current media structures was the advent of 'professional journalism' more than a century ago, which leads us to today, where bottom lines appear more important than delivering information to an ignorant public. Clearly, this site seeks the spirit of the muckraker and desperately wants to agitate the populous.
Despite my bitching, I think everyone ('cept Lippman, of course) would tip their hats to the spirit of this blog. More engaging issues could be brought up, instead of mentioning every possible conspiracy theory, and their nut-job creators, so that the site might not alienate those who are not quite as liberal. That said, I think there is no way this could be accomplished via print media- as newspapers will merely attempt to hit squarely in the middle so people of all political walks of life will read, and consequently, buy. But the blogger does not have such corporate interests and therefore nothing gets hurt if no one reads, 'cept maybe some pride. All in all, blogs like this one actually portray a VERY different view of issues, which makes me think of something Lippmann once said, "Where all think alike, no one thinks much."
I would say that the blog sites are exactly the type of citizen journalism that McChesney and Nichols call for. Specifically on 911truth.org, there is a claim right at the top of the page by a Zogby poll, which states that, “half of New Yorkers say US leaders had foreknowledge of 9/11 but ‘consciously failed’ to act.” Though these types of claims may make us uncomfortable, and may be discouraged by any government official, it is important that this perspective has an outlet where people can access it. McChesney and Nichols argue that “media have failed to fulfill a basic watchdog function…” (pg. 37). Where the media has failed thus far, they would advocate citizens to fill in the gaps and report “the crises that arise—and go unaddressed—when media are more interested in being popular than in being accurate or useful.”
Also, on the side of the 911truth blog, you find a link that says “help us get 911 Truth on local access cable.” These are the types of alternative mediums and sources that McChesney and Nichols envision as the solution to “real information and real choices [being] denied to most Americans by the current media regime” (pg. 42). As Gillmor points out, the fact that citizens have the potential to become the news creators instead of the news takers shows an immensely striking potential for the type of break from traditional media that McChesney and Nichols call for. People becoming the media’s watchdogs would be their ultimate ideal.
Obviously, these forms of citizen journalism would not be possible without the advent of the internet and different social forums that we’ve created to express our ideas online. Print journalism (in comparison to the electronic medium) has the disadvantages of time, effort, accessibility, and readership. In our increasingly computer-centered lives, it takes the average person less than a few minutes to make a cohesive post about their input on a political issue to an online web log. Doing so in a print medium would require printing and dissemination time that the average person would probably not want to expend. Also, an online forum is instantaneous and more accessible to people everywhere. An electronic medium to discuss civic issues is perfect for the electronic trend of our time.
I do agree with the above - I think McChesney and Nichols would definitely agree with blogs as the way of the future, although I think that there is something more permanent and more structured about newspapers that blogs can never achieve. Many conservatives and liberals alike read the New York Times, but I would be hard pressed to find a conservative who reads up on 911truth.org. Without a wide and ever-expanding audience, it is difficult to inform a majority of the public with your ideas.
Blogging can actually be really time intensive. Gilmore quotes newspaper Tom Stites in his intro, calling citizen journalists "those who are educated enough to take part in the wired conversation, who have the technological skills, and who are affluent enough to have the time and equipment." The bloggers I know definitely fit the first two of these requirements, but the third one is laughable. I actually agree with you. It is easier to post online than on paper, but my point is that there are still experts or some kind of leader (in this case a quality blogger)heading up the discussion - not at all a bad thing, because most people could not manage all the time and effort needed to update a quality blog. The same issues that concerned Lippmann are still issues online: time(because I find it does take a long time to read blogs and post comments), an overwhelming amount of information even when nicely organized by bloggers, and the potential for misinformation or meddling. I think Dewey is the one that would be absolutely thrilled about this development. Traditional media still continues its practice, and bloggers help start discussions on it. The great community then steps in and participates in discourse on it - not just in the comments but in conversation, too. Plus, in the event that the traditional media does neglect to focus on something significant, the bloggers or community can bring it to light for them. They truly are a watchdog, as you stated. Currently, they are still kind of in the margins -with mostly educated or socially/politically minded people participating, but I really don't think they will stay there. My sister has currently started reading them, and I'd say this is an indication the they are catching on. To me she represents the cutting edge of the masses. She willingly lumps herself in with the masses, but I think she usually joins a trend towards the beginning. As schools start to teach using forums and blogs it will become more and more popular. Soon the water cooler discussion will be on what atrios or instapundit, etc posted.
One of the problems with blogs is that it relies completely on computer access and time. A lot of citizens work eight hours a day or more without access to the internet. The amount of time it takes to keep up with a blog is asking a lot of the average citizen. These blogs discuss complex issues that take more than half an hour to understand and I didn't see any links to valuable resources that can break down an issue in a simplified way. So, I still think we're stuck with Tom Stites' and Lippmann's problem.
It seems to me that the weblogs most certainly meet the standards of citizen journalism. They are reporting in a manner that is informative and interesting to them. What works for me is the Instapundit style which largely consisted of thoughts followed by links to prominent stories of the day or other various links. This allows a conversation or editorial board to exist that is not available in the print media. With the blogs we have the ability to read while at the computer, click a link and give our own thoughts to the community as well. When reading the op-ed page in a newspaper, you'd have to get up and grab a paper and pen or go to the computer before you can respond and then find out where you have to send it. This just isn't possible in pring because by then the news cycle has changed and the editor will only select a few comments at most to publish the next day. Within the moment of the debate, immediately after publication, we have the ability to discuss in depth the issue and pass ideas around.