TechCrunch columnist Paul Carr took to New York’s public radio station WNYC yesterday to discuss the pros and cons of citizen journalism in the context of breaking news. Carr was joined by host Brian Lehrer and journalist and academic Jeff Jarvis, a longtime advocate of citizen journalism.
You may recall Paul’s controversial post last weekend which discussed the solider at Fort Hood who tweeted from inside the base during Thursday’s massacre—including posting a Twitpic of a victim and inaccurate reports of the events that took place. Carr delved into the ethical issues regarding this example of citizen journalism gone bad and its greater implications. His column sparked a tsunami of further debate and commentary about both the good and evil of uses of social media.
Carr and Jarvis battled heatedly over the journalistic virtue of witnesses reporting their real-time observations of news and whether the woman in question could be considered a “citizen journalist.” Jarvis came out swinging and it took Carr a while to start jabbing back, probably because the live interview was at an ungodly 6 AM in California, an hour which put our late-night thinker at a distinct and groggy disadvantage. But after a few swipes from Jarvis, Carr finally woke up and rallied. We think Carr won this one, but take a listen and tell us your thoughts!
I have to admit that most of the points raised by Paul in his Column in regard to Citizen Journalism are valid. Most of them act in a way to get as much attention as possible for instance in Neda’s case. I suspect the only intention of that guy was look for a tragedy to happen and film it instead of trying to help people or get them out of harm way.
The problem is that Americans have lost trust in their mainstream media. So they don’t question Twitter messages either.
Life is messy? We are living in a realtime world?
Do we really have to live with that? I don’t feel wiser than in the 80ies when I only read 2 newspapers per day and 1 magazin per week. I’m only more tired because I have to filter new information by myself and – unlike a paper – the internet is endless.
As Clay Shirky said, the problem is never of information overload but of filter failure. If the volume and diversity of the Internet’s sources compromise your ability to separate wheat from chaff, either limit what you browse or go back to your two newspapers. Your problem is no more unique any more than that of a 15th century scholar overwhelmed by the number of books he could read.
Depends on the definition of journalism. Some definitions broadly define as news gathering and reporting, other definitions also mention an editing aspect.
In any event, citizen journalism is a mixed bag, as is conventional journalism. Some youtube video of a newsworthy scene looks like journalism, but its often difficult to determine dates, location and other eliminates of authenticity. Not that traditional journalism gets it right all the time, but they have rules and processes in place. Look what happened to Dan Rather when he allegedly violated those rules.
There’s nothing to prevent a citizen from producing journalistic content, as there’s seemingly nothing to prevent some journalists from producing trash content. However, being an eyewitness with access to your twitter account doesn’t necessarily make you a journalist. Consider eyewitness testimony in criminal courtrooms. Many defense attorneys will advise ducking whenever a victim is asked by the Court to point to the perp. Under stress, most people are horrible eyewitnesses and this has lead to many convictions of innocent people.
I’m always reminded of the movie 12 Angry Men. The character portrayed by Henry Fonda had the attributes of what we should be seeking in any journalist – always questioning, inquiring, doubting. Regrettably, like many, I would likely have fall more in line with Jack Klugman’s character (”He’s guilty, no question”). We need Henry Fonda’s Juror #8 to deliver the news to us, not the others.
No doubt citizen reporting (sending pictures, videos, etc. to news outlets) is powerful and allows the news outlets to question/filter. Less certain with respect to citizen journalism.
the only time vets should be allowed to have guns is in training, guarding the base or in the line of duty. outside of that put them under lock and key. they can still have their toys to play with just they’ll be florescent orange decoys.
This is not only totally unrelated to the post, but also a terrible idea.
i thought techcrunch was an advocate of citizen journalism. woe is the web.
* Paul Carr’s views are not necessarily those of his employer.
In answer to Carr’s question, “Even if their stories are wrong Jeff? That’s fine, you’re still celebrating it? You’re saying it’s great? Get everything out there and trust the public?”
Yes, I celebrate it. Every news story is wrong. This just adds wrong stories that don’t have to answer to corporate gatekeepers. From these new wrongs we will get more right.
I agree. Bad actors seeking publicity will gain a reputation for such, and nobody will trust them.
mr Carr’s accent took me by surprise but i agree with mr Jarvis.
i believe in the decentralization of media and a big advocate of it’s democratization facilitated by the internet and an inappropriate comment from an onlooker doesn’t change my mind regarding that.
People who merely tweet something they observe are not “citizen journalists” – in fact, they are not journalists. They are sources. This is not much different than calling your friend and saying, “Hey, I saw this!”
The key difference is that these sources’ information is available to the entire world. They are still sources, however; just “universal sources” – as I have written: http://www.wiki...s-crowdsources/
Exactly. That should pretty much put an end to it — but won’t.
Agreed, but those individuals can, but not always, provide journalistic output. There’s the eyewitness, the source, the reporter, and the journalist. Some overlap, but not all the same.
I’ve referred to before but “State of Play” (with Russell Crowe, not a bad movie) did a nice job of showing journalism vs eyewitness reporting.
I have two general concerns. Quality (will every twit or youtube video be authentic; will misinformation spread like viruses) and lack of a compensation framework (some journalism requires backbreaking, boring, tedious investigation and work- who’ll end up doing this if its a “free for all”)?
No kidding. The issue all along should have been: “Why is the professional media reporting twitter sourced information without first verifying it?”
Also, in small towns everywhere, this kind of “journalism” is called gossip.
Yes!!! It’s the “I’m a journalist and you’re not” crowd that’s up in arms about this.
Don’t like the tweets? Don’t follow.
It’s just information.
Of course, the crisis isn’t about moral or immoral, professional or unprofessional tweets. It’s about the traditional gatekeeping (with its attendant political and financial factors) is breaking down.
Paul Carr thinks “this” – so what? Jeff Jarvis thinks “that” – so what? The appeal to authority doesn’t work anymore.
All that’s left – and I confess to being doubtful about this – are appeals to emotion or reason.
People complained about the objectivity of NYT, Fox, WSJ, every MSM channel etc.
Citizen journalists are great, samizdat and all that, but they often seem to want to be ‘first’ like on fuckedcompany.com to grab more followers, hits/traffic/views, etc.
The Ft Hood example wasnt and won’t be the first or worst of on the ground journalism, but it’s indicative of what we are going to see more of: publicity whores masquerading as citizen journalists.
It’s pretty close to mob rules. Jacobites.
I’m not sure why all you fans of the truth think that Jarvis’s spawn is going to deliver us to some journalistic promised land. I’ll take the MSM over *most* bloggers anyday. Hint: Techcrunch is MSM now….
I thought it was a great piece. I agree 100% with Paul, and I felt like Jeff was dramatizing the points Paul made for his own benefit.
I think he is absolutely correct by saying “We need to get back to a point as a society where – without thinking – we put our humanity before our ego”.
Thanks for both pieces and the reminder to all of us to “do the right thing”.
At what time in history were we at that point?
Nice job on both sides really. Jarvis is an academic, which means a lot of what he believes and preaches would be right in a vacuum, but doesn’t quite work in the real life.
Jarvis is jumping to conclusions based on what Paul is saying until Lehrer decides that Paul’s argument makes sense. To paint this with “the internet is messy” is a ridiculous argument and Jarvis came off as a hothead. Good going Paul.
Do you believe everything you read on the internets?
So, why would that change with Twitter?
I think I generally agree with Paul. In a story like the shooting, eventually the facts are going to come out.
It’s in political stories where it gets more complicated. What’s going to be the Twitter version of “Al Gore claims he invented the Internet!”
And before the trolls try to claim that’s true, be aware that you are on the wrong side of a guy who actually did invent the Internet – http://www.poli...om/p-01394.html
See also http://www.snop...es/internet.asp
While I agree with Paul, I do question the accuracy of normal journalists also.
Many of the stories in the mainline media have been proven to be incorrect or over exaggerated recently.
I enjoyed this radio interview – thanks for posting it.
I can’t say anyone “won” here.
I believe Paul’s side is that he doesn’t want to see humanity and human decency erode into something awful just because we are becoming a more ‘connected’ society.
And Jeff’s side seems to be that this ‘connected’ society is unstoppable and we must learn to accept it and find ways to harness it.
Really just two sides of the same coin in my opinion.
Does anyone know the name of Paul Carrs book? And what is it about?
And where can I get it?
Jarvis is exactly right about Carr setting up a strawman in the form of this tweeter. It is incredibly unfair to put a microscope on one part of something, declare it is “bad” and then impugn the whole idea with that single incident.
Would it be fair if I took the incident with Jayson Blair and examined that and then declared that the whole idea of mainstream journalism was bullshit? That is exactly what Carr does in his original piece.
Carr may want to check the material his house is constructed with before trying to throw stones in it.
The only point that Carr is wrong about is the belief that people will go to their video camera before helping because they want fame/want something during a crises.
It is well documented that people will do what they are good at/trained to do during a crises — which used to be just stand there and gawk/watch people die or get beat up.
Now people feel comfortable with a camera — so they film — it lets them feel like they are at least doing something — since they are not trained to get involved or intervene.
“Citizen journalist” makes about as much sense “citizen dentist” or “citizen accountant.”
Journalists are trained professionals.
People who provide accounts of newsworthy incidents are sources.
That’s true regardless of whether they have a Twitter account.
You sound like you from London.
carr’s position was absurd from the start. he’s spent the whole debate walking it back. keep going, carr. you lost. no censorship. no pretty bow. boo hoo.
Yes, Peter Smith, that would be absurd if it were my position.
You should probably actually read what I wrote rather than simply quoting Jarvis’ “pretty bow” nonsense, then you’d realise this debate has nothing to do with cit-journalism vs the “mainstream media”. It’s about cit-journalism vs humanity. Here’s just a taster quote from the column to get you started…
“As I’ve already said – and I’m even starting to bore myself now – the answer isn’t censorship (which won’t work), but rather in our social evolution catching up with the state of technology.”
As for walking anything back, I stand by everything I wrote. I’m not retracting or walking back a single word. Not least because I’m still right.
hi paul. nice of you to point out to people who didn’t get the large premise that this whole incident is just a microcasm of a much much bigger issue. i like to think of it as a technology vs humanity issue, but more speciafically in terms of human use of technology vs social norms/accepted values/morality/ethics, etc…i think it’s important for people to look at what you wrote as well as what matthew ingram wrote because not all humans view things all alike. i might like “flawed” information to be in the ether so that more “credible” or “accurate” information can come out, but i don’t subscribe to the whole “it’s such a good thing that something is flawed and just cause it’s flawed it must be okay because there might be some truth gleaned from it”. okay. if people want to view it like that then fine, except that i think it’s responsible of people to think about things on a larger profile because wrong information in dispersed among us all, consumed by as, and then becoming a norm is unacceptable. you can’t just say it’s all just information. yeah but information comes from people right, and people have opinions, bias, perspectives, etc…and i think that always has to be evaluated in context with the information divulged itself.
like i said in my comment to your piece i didn’t read her tweets. i didn’t follow her. i don’t twitter. i’m not an enuch (enoch?), so i don’t know if she’s a citizen journalist but i think it’s just so sad that people don’t think about their actions, from this lady to the people who used her information as “news”.
thanks leena and thanks paul. good debate.
is this guy for real? i know so many of my friends who use twitter and take it as news all the freaking time. geez. please even the smartest person knows not to take the public seriously. why do you think everything is dummed down for us? because everyone thinks people are stupid and that teenagers don’t use their brains.
paul’s lamenting. hahah he makes you sound like an old geezer. hahaha didn’t you preface this by saying you use social media. hahahaa. what the hell is he talking about packaged. so the internet is life, lie is messa, ergo the internet is messy and so be it. wow. and that’s that right. but we want to censor the information. living in the public is a way to “connect” people. wow.
i think what paul is advocating for is for people to use their mother f’n brains. just think before you do something. i mean is that too hard to ask?