Rambling About Katrina and Citizen Journalism

One of the recurring themes that's been going around and that's been

intensified by the Hurricane Katrina coverage is
the

concept of citizen journalism.



This is the idea that regular folks (*gasp*) can inform the public



debate and populate the shared information space by using blogs,

photos



and other forms of digital media (including audio and

video).

Before



the Web, citizen journalism existed, but was largely the stuff of



newsletters,  grassroots advocacy action alerts and letters
to

the editor.  Big media



incorporated it, but mostly as a supplement to regular coverage --

"man



on the street" interviews, call-in shows, and the like.


The

emergence of the Web, with its lower technological and economic

barriers to entry, has turned the traditional content model

upside-down. (Or at least

sideways.)

Now, it can be tempting to dive into the

metaphor of the big old-media dinosaur fighting a

losing battle against the small, fast new-media

mammal...though



I think it's a pretty safe bet that the future lies in some sort of



convergence between the two, with big media adapting by bringing to

bear its ability to bring in eyeballs and advertising



dollars.

Anyway, because there are so many

individual voices involved, one of the main

challenges with citizen journalism is figuring out how to
get

particular voices heard; at one end of the spectrum is a

centralized, top-down model,



where a traditional media presence acts like an editorial filter to



direct the conversation and to focus people's attention on a

particular



item.









At the other end is a kind of controlled chaos,

where



there's no distinct centralized authority, when people rely on



technology and a shared set of norms to self-regulate what goes in and



what rises to the top.

Keep in mind, no matter
where

you go on the spectrum,



we rely heavily on technology to help filter the noise, pick out nodes



of interest, spot trends and all that good

stuff.

Now, at the risk of getting too attached to
a

particular metaphor, think of a football stadium

full of people: If you step back and try to take it all in, most of

the time you get a dull roar.



However, if you have the right tools, you can zoom in to hear what a



particular group, or maybe even an individual, is saying. Also, every



once in a while, a synchronized chant will

spontaneously self-organize. Sometimes, there's a marching

band. And every once in a while, a streaker

will run out onto the field. (Let's ignore the

riots for now.)

Okay,

that's a silly metaphor -- I'll leave you to think

about which part means what (I'm not quite sure myself).



What



does all this mean? For now, it means keeping track of efforts,

both



big and small, to harness the power of thousands and millions of

voices



on the Web.

Here are some examples

of citizen journalism that are going on right now, using Katrina as a

focal point:




* CNN is highlighting people's hurricane photos and e-mailed comments.
*
BBC

News's offering is similar, though seems a bit

more substantial.
*

MSNBC's citizen

journalism piece is similar.
*

NOLA.com's (the Web site of the New Orleans

Times-Picayune) Caught on Camera feature and

WWLTV's Weather

Photos page are probably a little closer to the

action (since, well, they are).

Somewhere in the mix
is something like

AOL



News's







new Daily Pulse Blog, where reader comments



are used to get feedback and help shape







the rest of the coverage, and where reader comments also become part

of



the coverage.

The



advantage of these approaches, of course, is access to a constant flow



of information from many, many sources -- but with a level

of



moderation to manage the risk of

shenanigans -- the dissemination of



incorrect or deliberately manipulative information. Plus, it brings an



audience.

The downside is that you're relying on
the

intermediation (the lens or filter) of a particular

media organization.

Of



course, we're also seeing traditional media outlets using blogs as



another way to keep updated information flowing out to news

consumers:
* Sun-Sentinel Hurricane Blog
*

WDSU's Katrina Blog
* NOLA.com's

Blog





In



these cases, larger news organizations are using blogs for many of the



same reasons an individual would: speed of publishing, the



ability to follow the development of a story (as the new stuff goes on



top); the ability to easily incorporate links, photos, audio and video;
plus,



the ability to spread via feeds and take

comments.

Even



though an established news organization has the

advantages of



professional reporting, editorial, design and publishing staffs,

access



to newswires and photobanks, etc., there's plenty of room on



the playing field for highly motivated individuals or

groups to do



something similar -- putting together stories from a variety of sources
and



wrap it up, complete with your own editorial voice or choice. One

example would be a group blog like New Orleans

MetroBlogging, which is normally a local-interest blog
that's

mobilized around this topic of intense

relevance.

Finally,



the stuff that's really breaking the mold and shaking things up, is

the



stuff that's completely new, that just wouldn't be



possible without the enabling technologies that

allow like-minded



individuals to converge.









Flickr (just like we saw in the London bombings),
is

a completely self-directed photo sharing



community, where users tag photos according to content (and where we



see traditional media trying to replicate their model); similarly,

the



open-source news source WikiNews is trying to do to news what

WikiPedia



is doing -- creating  a collaborative space where any

individual



can contribute, albeit subject to the norms of the community and the



watchful eye of other similarly-minded

individuals.





It remains to be seen what's gonna work, where, when (and how). Who

knows, maybe I'm wrong and big media just won't get it. For example,

the L.A. Times tried an experiment in June with a
group editorial page

(or wikitorial), using the WikiPedia model -- it lasted two days, when

they pulled it down due to (presumably) trolls
posting inappropriate

content. (For some of your daily dose of irony, check out the WikiNews
article about it.). Flawed concept or poor implementation? We
shall see.



Wow,



this has been a pretty long and wide-ranging post. I was actually just



looking for a way to bundle up some other hurricane

blog links.

Talk to you later. -- Joe