I've been in touch with Bob Nesson, a Somerville film maker, community activist and instructor at Emerson College who is willing to be interviewed and to point us to concrete local examples of new media and its influence or lack of influence on three very tangible and most importantly VISUAL local issues:
* the proposed extension of the green line of the T into Somerville
* the cleanup of the Mystic River
* the connection of diesel emissions to chronic respiratory disease
You can check out some of Bob's work or links to it on Nessonmedia. org or .com - forget which.
I like starting with Bob and moving to local lawmakers, bloggers, academicians and policy wonks because for visual purposes it gives us something to shoot other than interviews and "wallpaper" and because it's local and therefore doable on no budget and because it's concrete and measurable.
From the academic perspective, the book I borrowed from Nolan on Blogging, Citizenship and the Future of Media, has tons of sociological research on blogging, its content and impact. Not to mention the great resources you all have already mentioned.
Stuart 704 607-0658 stuart_watson@harvard.edu
Monday, November 19, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Interview with Ethan Zuchkerman
Tuesday November 13th 2007
Interview with Ethan Zuckerman
Antonio and I met Ethan Zuckerman of the Berkman Centre tonight and here’s a quick transcript of the interview:
The notion of new media as a tool for democratic and civic empowerment is still a very controversial issue that has not been settled. The Berkman centre is clearly biased in advocating that there’s a direct path between new technology and democracy. Mary Joyce for one is a real enthusiast.
I’m a bit of a contrarian: while there’s evidence of small movements using these tools to be heard, for the most part, it’s still old media that matters.
It’s still radio and TV that can get people out on the streets.
Look at the recent examples abroad: when Musharraf wants to clamp down, he begins by taking control of the TV station. Internet is not considered a real threat to his control of Pakistan.
There are few people who would actually suggest internet is disempowering. It’s just that for the most part, the technology is over-promising. Most of the world still do not have access to Internet.
China
Many members of the current US administration believed the introduction of Internet in China would bring democracy. That is clearly not the case: the Chinese regime has blocked the western sites and produced their own equivalents of Google and Flickr, etc. These provide a great deal of content to the Chinese but simply censure the topics that threaten the regime’s hold on the populace. The Chinese people seem satisfied with the tools; If anything internet has become a tool for the Chinese regime to placate its citizens.
The only other examples of spontaneous use by the Chinese of the internet have led to very populist, anti-Japanese, anti-American rallies. Not exactly a vector for democracy, as we imagined.
A further example of this (in China) is the difference in coverage of the issue of the Genocide Olympics.
The persons to contact on this issue are:
- Rebecca McKinnon at the Berkman Centre.
- Isaac Mao, a Chinese blogger ( I quote: “ Before we look for freedom of speech, we need freedom of thought”; He believes there’s no deep-seated desire to think alternatively in China.)
No hard state will ever abolish or cut off these technologies: it’s simply unsustainable. The expatriate populations of these countries are too large. They are choosing instead to apply soft censorship, as in the Chinese example.
Political Blogs
Blogs have changed the nature of journalism. I have been carving a space of para-academia for years.
But it will take time before it becomes a dominant media.
Political blogs, mostly right-wing ones are claiming new technology will put an end to all the foreign hard regimes. There is no empirical evidence defending this.
Internet remains an elite technology as opposed to the mainstream media.
It will still be a long time before it becomes mainstream and it does not appear to be killing broadcast media as fast and as surely as we thought.
Political blogs are also polarizing the public, making them more partisan. Cass Sustein defended this premise in Republic.com. Natalie Glance challenged that and tried to demonstrate that blogs also encourages cross-thinking, in her paper “Divided they blog”.
American Politics and New Media
Americans continue to think new technology in terms of old politics.
The example of Howard Dean’s internet fundraising is often cited. People forget to mention that most of that money goes to buying TV ad time!
TV is still the main media affecting American politics, by far.
People to contact:
Andrew Keene
Cass Sustein, Republic.com
Alex Jones, Shorenstein.
All other internet news phenomena, such as the Jena Six, George Allen & “Macaque”, the involvement of latino high-schools in the pro-immigration rallies, all of these only became news when they finally hit the mainstream media.
Russia
There are some more interesting examples of internet as a civic tool abroad.
In Russia, there was a massive internet movement against an anti-aging pill called Gravacol (turns out it was just sugar pills) that mobilized people and organized forms of industrial / commercial sabotage.
Person to contact: Evgeni Morozov from Byelorussia (and the example of LuTube).
Still in these hard regimes, no authority feels threatened by internet and internet communities. It has never led to any real massive demonstrations.
If anything, Americans are over-enthused by the internet as a tool for social change because it reflects the total absence of any real change in the American political system.
Africa
Other examples of internet impacting society.
The current Ethiopian regime is quite dictatorial, and they brutally repressed some student demonstrations. The blogosphere has become the sole dissident space, and there was one blogger in particular, a wife of an Italian diplomat, who recorded all of the regime’s abuses. Her pseudonym was Addis Ferrengi. She was eventually chased out of the country by the authorities.
Zimbabwe is another example where the authorities have denied traditional media access into the country. Net has become critical in getting information in and out of the country.
The authorities passed a communications interception bill, which routs all traffic.
Nonetheless, these are rare examples that present internet as a relevant civic tool, which is false. It is an elite tool that won’t mobilize massively.
Bahrain
Mohammed Youssef circulated air images of royal properties, showing the incredible disparities in that country. Google Maps was eventually closed, although the images that were circulating were on a pdf file.
Conclusion
If I had to frame the question differently, I’d say the issue is about storytelling. The internet offers the possibility to tell one’s story which will have a greater political impact than civic mobilization, in the long term.
Nevertheless, always keep in mind: although the commodity market has globalized, and human mobility has increased, and although the mobility of bytes may seem infinite, people are not interested in expanding their world.
No one here is really interested in the dissident movement in Somalia. People’s media consumption is parochial. We’re interested in local news and eventually news about our nearest neighbors or largest trading partners. And that’s about it.
It is difficult to transcend differences such as language and culture.
Even among dissident bloggers across the world, there is little solidarity among them. Each is focused on their local struggle.
Interview with Ethan Zuckerman
Antonio and I met Ethan Zuckerman of the Berkman Centre tonight and here’s a quick transcript of the interview:
The notion of new media as a tool for democratic and civic empowerment is still a very controversial issue that has not been settled. The Berkman centre is clearly biased in advocating that there’s a direct path between new technology and democracy. Mary Joyce for one is a real enthusiast.
I’m a bit of a contrarian: while there’s evidence of small movements using these tools to be heard, for the most part, it’s still old media that matters.
It’s still radio and TV that can get people out on the streets.
Look at the recent examples abroad: when Musharraf wants to clamp down, he begins by taking control of the TV station. Internet is not considered a real threat to his control of Pakistan.
There are few people who would actually suggest internet is disempowering. It’s just that for the most part, the technology is over-promising. Most of the world still do not have access to Internet.
China
Many members of the current US administration believed the introduction of Internet in China would bring democracy. That is clearly not the case: the Chinese regime has blocked the western sites and produced their own equivalents of Google and Flickr, etc. These provide a great deal of content to the Chinese but simply censure the topics that threaten the regime’s hold on the populace. The Chinese people seem satisfied with the tools; If anything internet has become a tool for the Chinese regime to placate its citizens.
The only other examples of spontaneous use by the Chinese of the internet have led to very populist, anti-Japanese, anti-American rallies. Not exactly a vector for democracy, as we imagined.
A further example of this (in China) is the difference in coverage of the issue of the Genocide Olympics.
The persons to contact on this issue are:
- Rebecca McKinnon at the Berkman Centre.
- Isaac Mao, a Chinese blogger ( I quote: “ Before we look for freedom of speech, we need freedom of thought”; He believes there’s no deep-seated desire to think alternatively in China.)
No hard state will ever abolish or cut off these technologies: it’s simply unsustainable. The expatriate populations of these countries are too large. They are choosing instead to apply soft censorship, as in the Chinese example.
Political Blogs
Blogs have changed the nature of journalism. I have been carving a space of para-academia for years.
But it will take time before it becomes a dominant media.
Political blogs, mostly right-wing ones are claiming new technology will put an end to all the foreign hard regimes. There is no empirical evidence defending this.
Internet remains an elite technology as opposed to the mainstream media.
It will still be a long time before it becomes mainstream and it does not appear to be killing broadcast media as fast and as surely as we thought.
Political blogs are also polarizing the public, making them more partisan. Cass Sustein defended this premise in Republic.com. Natalie Glance challenged that and tried to demonstrate that blogs also encourages cross-thinking, in her paper “Divided they blog”.
American Politics and New Media
Americans continue to think new technology in terms of old politics.
The example of Howard Dean’s internet fundraising is often cited. People forget to mention that most of that money goes to buying TV ad time!
TV is still the main media affecting American politics, by far.
People to contact:
Andrew Keene
Cass Sustein, Republic.com
Alex Jones, Shorenstein.
All other internet news phenomena, such as the Jena Six, George Allen & “Macaque”, the involvement of latino high-schools in the pro-immigration rallies, all of these only became news when they finally hit the mainstream media.
Russia
There are some more interesting examples of internet as a civic tool abroad.
In Russia, there was a massive internet movement against an anti-aging pill called Gravacol (turns out it was just sugar pills) that mobilized people and organized forms of industrial / commercial sabotage.
Person to contact: Evgeni Morozov from Byelorussia (and the example of LuTube).
Still in these hard regimes, no authority feels threatened by internet and internet communities. It has never led to any real massive demonstrations.
If anything, Americans are over-enthused by the internet as a tool for social change because it reflects the total absence of any real change in the American political system.
Africa
Other examples of internet impacting society.
The current Ethiopian regime is quite dictatorial, and they brutally repressed some student demonstrations. The blogosphere has become the sole dissident space, and there was one blogger in particular, a wife of an Italian diplomat, who recorded all of the regime’s abuses. Her pseudonym was Addis Ferrengi. She was eventually chased out of the country by the authorities.
Zimbabwe is another example where the authorities have denied traditional media access into the country. Net has become critical in getting information in and out of the country.
The authorities passed a communications interception bill, which routs all traffic.
Nonetheless, these are rare examples that present internet as a relevant civic tool, which is false. It is an elite tool that won’t mobilize massively.
Bahrain
Mohammed Youssef circulated air images of royal properties, showing the incredible disparities in that country. Google Maps was eventually closed, although the images that were circulating were on a pdf file.
Conclusion
If I had to frame the question differently, I’d say the issue is about storytelling. The internet offers the possibility to tell one’s story which will have a greater political impact than civic mobilization, in the long term.
Nevertheless, always keep in mind: although the commodity market has globalized, and human mobility has increased, and although the mobility of bytes may seem infinite, people are not interested in expanding their world.
No one here is really interested in the dissident movement in Somalia. People’s media consumption is parochial. We’re interested in local news and eventually news about our nearest neighbors or largest trading partners. And that’s about it.
It is difficult to transcend differences such as language and culture.
Even among dissident bloggers across the world, there is little solidarity among them. Each is focused on their local struggle.
JENA 6
Jena 6 as an interesting example or question of how the digital technolgy is advancing or empowering democratic activity.
I propose this case be part of the doc, because it opens up the discussion to how blogs played a significant role in getting people mobilized to action while mainstream news sources stood aside, save for wire services, Howard Witt in a less
IN THE CASE OF THE JENA 6("gee-nah): It's estimated that nearly 20,000 people attended a rally in Alexandria, La, the largest town near Jena, and approx 4 hours northwest of New Orleans on September 20,2007 to protest the seemingly uneven treatment received by black high school youths compared to their white counterparts stemming from an act of intimidation on the grounds of the local Jena public high school.
Rev, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were featured speakers in Alexandria. Sharpton is widely quoted for saying that he learned about the Jena story via blogs.
The following is excerpted from Howard Witt's Chicago Trib article, "What of the Jena 6 funds?"
The update spells out extent to which attention was paid as well as money to defense attorneys working on the cases of six black students. So, there are clear limits to what this case illustrates in terms of mobilization and the nature of drive groups or crowds to do something and then organizers and agendas lose momentum.
From Witt article, Nov 12, 2007:
"The case, now a national civil rights touchstone, grew out of a September 2006 incident at the high school in Jena when three white students hung nooses from a tree in the school's courtyard in a warning directed at black students not to try to sit in its shade. School officials dismissed the nooses as a prank, angering black students and their families who regarded the incident as a hate crime.
A series of fights between black and white youths ensued, culminating in a Dec. 4 attack in which the six black students are alleged to have beaten a white student, knocking him briefly unconscious. Although the white student was not hospitalized, the prosecutor initially charged the six teenagers with attempted murder, while declining to charge white youths who had earlier attacked blacks with similarly serious crimes."(end quote)
I suggest as guests to discuss
Student activist :TBD: THE voice and perspective on lessons learned through getting news and activist literature through a non-trad news medium, how when and what was done with the information by a student. By contrast, what was this activist/ student doing before the rally, i.e. did they participate in demonstration s, etc and did traditional news media play any role in previous activity?
EXPERT/ANALYST:Jim Romensko, Poynter Institute:
Has written extensively abut how national media was stand-offish about the story and blog world ventured more quickly. Can potentially comment on the goods bads and lessons from this case syudy in citizen-like activity.
ACTIVIST/ROCKSTAR:Rev. Al Sharpton, on how he first learned about the case of the so-called "Jena 6" His views on:
1. How the Blogosphere deseminated information, some accurate, other parts distorted to get the message of a demonstration and rally in a remote part of Louisiana in a small amount of time.
2. His previous experience of blogs, social networking with regard to African Americans , especially students and everyday people.
3. Whta he sees as the potential for such activity based on ther Jena 6 experience.
REPORTER: National Correspondent Howard Witt, Chgo Tribune
This traditional mainstream journalist covered the story months and months other news outlets paid any attention, save for local news media in and around Jena.
As late as yesterday he's still writing about aspects of the mobilization:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/chi-jena_bdnov11,0,6545985.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout
That's what I have. I'm reluctant to post cell numbers on this blog, but look forward to meeting up and doling out assignments/plts for video coverage andpictures and interviews before
I propose this case be part of the doc, because it opens up the discussion to how blogs played a significant role in getting people mobilized to action while mainstream news sources stood aside, save for wire services, Howard Witt in a less
IN THE CASE OF THE JENA 6("gee-nah): It's estimated that nearly 20,000 people attended a rally in Alexandria, La, the largest town near Jena, and approx 4 hours northwest of New Orleans on September 20,2007 to protest the seemingly uneven treatment received by black high school youths compared to their white counterparts stemming from an act of intimidation on the grounds of the local Jena public high school.
Rev, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were featured speakers in Alexandria. Sharpton is widely quoted for saying that he learned about the Jena story via blogs.
The following is excerpted from Howard Witt's Chicago Trib article, "What of the Jena 6 funds?"
The update spells out extent to which attention was paid as well as money to defense attorneys working on the cases of six black students. So, there are clear limits to what this case illustrates in terms of mobilization and the nature of drive groups or crowds to do something and then organizers and agendas lose momentum.
From Witt article, Nov 12, 2007:
"The case, now a national civil rights touchstone, grew out of a September 2006 incident at the high school in Jena when three white students hung nooses from a tree in the school's courtyard in a warning directed at black students not to try to sit in its shade. School officials dismissed the nooses as a prank, angering black students and their families who regarded the incident as a hate crime.
A series of fights between black and white youths ensued, culminating in a Dec. 4 attack in which the six black students are alleged to have beaten a white student, knocking him briefly unconscious. Although the white student was not hospitalized, the prosecutor initially charged the six teenagers with attempted murder, while declining to charge white youths who had earlier attacked blacks with similarly serious crimes."(end quote)
I suggest as guests to discuss
Student activist :TBD: THE voice and perspective on lessons learned through getting news and activist literature through a non-trad news medium, how when and what was done with the information by a student. By contrast, what was this activist/ student doing before the rally, i.e. did they participate in demonstration s, etc and did traditional news media play any role in previous activity?
EXPERT/ANALYST:Jim Romensko, Poynter Institute:
Has written extensively abut how national media was stand-offish about the story and blog world ventured more quickly. Can potentially comment on the goods bads and lessons from this case syudy in citizen-like activity.
ACTIVIST/ROCKSTAR:Rev. Al Sharpton, on how he first learned about the case of the so-called "Jena 6" His views on:
1. How the Blogosphere deseminated information, some accurate, other parts distorted to get the message of a demonstration and rally in a remote part of Louisiana in a small amount of time.
2. His previous experience of blogs, social networking with regard to African Americans , especially students and everyday people.
3. Whta he sees as the potential for such activity based on ther Jena 6 experience.
REPORTER: National Correspondent Howard Witt, Chgo Tribune
This traditional mainstream journalist covered the story months and months other news outlets paid any attention, save for local news media in and around Jena.
As late as yesterday he's still writing about aspects of the mobilization:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/chi-jena_bdnov11,0,6545985.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout
That's what I have. I'm reluctant to post cell numbers on this blog, but look forward to meeting up and doling out assignments/plts for video coverage andpictures and interviews before
Monday, November 12, 2007
Wikipedia and Commons initiatives
Wikipedia and the Commons’ initiatives:
Features that empower:
- more information, more ideas and proposals, more debate
- the access to the this speech tool democratic (no limitation by property, by money, by rights)
- the addition of speech to this tool is also democratic (everyone who wants may contribute)
- network effect of the Wikipedia enhances the impact /importance on the democratic discussion and deliberation
- the way the system operates (the openness, immediateness, various languages , of the speech and discussion) keeps it more free from the governmental and corporations’ censorship
- the system of addition/deletion of information is auto-controlled. The possibility of expression of opposing perspectives should assure that people, at least, have the right to express and, the readers will know, the controversy
- Wiki has an example of a cooperative society where the actors expect and behave differently, and the roles and rules are also differently
Features that Desempower:
- It is so easy to add/contribute that the transaction/error costs that would dissuade bad contributors almost disappear
- It is so easy to access info on Wikipedia (free – no fee access and no advertising, many languages, topped on searches in search-engines) that people may end up by trusting too much / deliberating based exclusively upon the wiki knowledge; but, some of the wiki knowledge is total crap (as the own Website recognizes) . Requires high level of media literacy
- no identification of the author’s/contents’ biases may lead people into error
- hack of the platform/system, and fights between contributors – may lead to discredibilization of
- the contribution is still more technologically exclusive than the access. Thus, it will still be an uneven democratic platform (some voices are technologically silenced)
- censorship by administrators – their role in case of conflicts between contributors and information added
- the nature of encyclopedia imposes neutrality, instead of some partisanship that is necessary to the debate. It excludes any purpose of deliberation or even of influence of deliberation per se
- these communitarian experiences like Wikipedia, 2nd Life, Facebook, Creative Commons, are not representative of the society. They only include a fraction of the population which has a certain common identity. Any lesson taken from it can be misleading because there is a big majority of the population that doesn’t use or want to use such type of mechanisms…
- Difficult accountability for bad/aggressive user of the power of Wikipedia (ex. Seigenthaler controversy - Story of John Seigenthaler Sr., and the inaccurate entries in Wikipedia about his past and his a role in the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy).
To be interviewed
- From Wikipedia:
o Jimmy Wales (Founder, Chairman Emeritus, St Petersburg Florida),
o Kat Walsh (member of Board of Trustees, Washington DC),
o Michael Davis (member of Board of Trustees, St Petersburg Florida),
o Brad Patrick (Wikipedia's Outside Counsel
- Professors and Reseachers:
o Lawrence Lessig (Stanford University) lessig_from_web@pobox.com Lessig@pobox.com
o Jonathan Zittrain (HLS – Berkman Center. Wrote about wikipedia arguing its positive effect on democracy) – zittrain@law.harvard.edu
o David Weinberger (HLS, Berkman Center) self@evident.com
o Yochai Benkler (HLS, Berkman Center) yochai_benkler@harvard.edu
o Danah Boyd (UC Berkeley, research on Wikipedia, Cooperative behavior and platforms, Berkman Center, danah@danah.org or press@@danah.org)
o Andrew McAfee (HBS – Case on Wikipedia)
- People that had/lead related initiatives:
o Eric Steven Raymond (computer programmer, hacker, author and open source software advocate, President Emeritus and Co-Founder of the Open Source Initiative) - esr@thyrsus.com.
o Mitch Kapor (entrepreneur, activist, he is related to the birth of projects like mozilla and second life) – mitch@kapor.com +1 415 946-3019
o Ward Cunningham (known as the inventor of the first wiki, called WikiWikiWeb)
- Others:
- John Seigenthaler Sr (if we want to explore his story)
I have to find some other names that can show up as critics. I hope that tomorrow Ethan Zuckerman can give me some ideas.
Features that empower:
- more information, more ideas and proposals, more debate
- the access to the this speech tool democratic (no limitation by property, by money, by rights)
- the addition of speech to this tool is also democratic (everyone who wants may contribute)
- network effect of the Wikipedia enhances the impact /importance on the democratic discussion and deliberation
- the way the system operates (the openness, immediateness, various languages , of the speech and discussion) keeps it more free from the governmental and corporations’ censorship
- the system of addition/deletion of information is auto-controlled. The possibility of expression of opposing perspectives should assure that people, at least, have the right to express and, the readers will know, the controversy
- Wiki has an example of a cooperative society where the actors expect and behave differently, and the roles and rules are also differently
Features that Desempower:
- It is so easy to add/contribute that the transaction/error costs that would dissuade bad contributors almost disappear
- It is so easy to access info on Wikipedia (free – no fee access and no advertising, many languages, topped on searches in search-engines) that people may end up by trusting too much / deliberating based exclusively upon the wiki knowledge; but, some of the wiki knowledge is total crap (as the own Website recognizes) . Requires high level of media literacy
- no identification of the author’s/contents’ biases may lead people into error
- hack of the platform/system, and fights between contributors – may lead to discredibilization of
- the contribution is still more technologically exclusive than the access. Thus, it will still be an uneven democratic platform (some voices are technologically silenced)
- censorship by administrators – their role in case of conflicts between contributors and information added
- the nature of encyclopedia imposes neutrality, instead of some partisanship that is necessary to the debate. It excludes any purpose of deliberation or even of influence of deliberation per se
- these communitarian experiences like Wikipedia, 2nd Life, Facebook, Creative Commons, are not representative of the society. They only include a fraction of the population which has a certain common identity. Any lesson taken from it can be misleading because there is a big majority of the population that doesn’t use or want to use such type of mechanisms…
- Difficult accountability for bad/aggressive user of the power of Wikipedia (ex. Seigenthaler controversy - Story of John Seigenthaler Sr., and the inaccurate entries in Wikipedia about his past and his a role in the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy).
To be interviewed
- From Wikipedia:
o Jimmy Wales (Founder, Chairman Emeritus, St Petersburg Florida),
o Kat Walsh (member of Board of Trustees, Washington DC),
o Michael Davis (member of Board of Trustees, St Petersburg Florida),
o Brad Patrick (Wikipedia's Outside Counsel
- Professors and Reseachers:
o Lawrence Lessig (Stanford University) lessig_from_web@pobox.com Lessig@pobox.com
o Jonathan Zittrain (HLS – Berkman Center. Wrote about wikipedia arguing its positive effect on democracy) – zittrain@law.harvard.edu
o David Weinberger (HLS, Berkman Center) self@evident.com
o Yochai Benkler (HLS, Berkman Center) yochai_benkler@harvard.edu
o Danah Boyd (UC Berkeley, research on Wikipedia, Cooperative behavior and platforms, Berkman Center, danah@danah.org or press@@danah.org)
o Andrew McAfee (HBS – Case on Wikipedia)
- People that had/lead related initiatives:
o Eric Steven Raymond (computer programmer, hacker, author and open source software advocate, President Emeritus and Co-Founder of the Open Source Initiative) - esr@thyrsus.com.
o Mitch Kapor (entrepreneur, activist, he is related to the birth of projects like mozilla and second life) – mitch@kapor.com +1 415 946-3019
o Ward Cunningham (known as the inventor of the first wiki, called WikiWikiWeb)
- Others:
- John Seigenthaler Sr (if we want to explore his story)
I have to find some other names that can show up as critics. I hope that tomorrow Ethan Zuckerman can give me some ideas.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Citizen journalism vs. Citizen Power
I read Shamir's post and I agree that the London Bombings (LB) are a great story for a documentary.
However, I think that is not easy to fit such event into the documentary that we decided to do.
The LB are an excellent story of citizen journalism, but I am not sure that whether such event demonstrates the empowerment of people in the democratic game.
As far as I see it, citizen journalism means journalism made by ordinary people. That is to say, the gathering and revelation of information being virtually made by all, instead of being limited to the narrow group of the journalists.
More citizen journalism means that more information will be gathered, from more sources, in more places and situations.
However, it doesnt necessarily mean that those citizens who become journalists have more power.
Nonetheless, lets try to "save" the story and fit it into our documentary:
1. the first thing to do is to agree upon what means empowerment. considering our discussions, I would say that: empowerment means having a more decisive role in the democratic process.
2. In my opinion, the democratic process has 3 or 4 different stages: (i) acquisition of information, (ii) discussion - which includes (iia) presentation of proposals, (iib) and argumentation and discussion of proposals -, and (iii) deliberation.
(the process is circular: after every deliberation the agents are suposed to gather information about, and discuss, the execution or not of the deliberation, its impact, new facts that may require new deliberation; and,
the process is not necessarily formal: most of the blogs that discuss politics or policies fit mostly in the (ii) stage, but can also fit in the (i) stage to the extent they reveal information relevant to the democratic process);
3. I think that the type of citizen journalism in London Bombings fits mostly in the (i) stage. Citizens got more powerfull, because they used technologies to disclose very relevant events (to the society and the democratic process).
Citizen journalism like such in LB (where people mostly gather information) adds a very important news-source to the demoratic process.
A story like LB doesnt assure that we will have more proposals or discussion of proposals in our society. But it may demonstrate that citizens have a new role in the democratic process: gathering information. Citizens are no longer passive and waiting for the class of journalists feed them with information. Citizens became active pieces of the (i) stage of the democratic process. Citizens are empowered because they can really contribute/enhance the democratic debate by fueling its basis: the information.
4. I think that our biggest challenge with the LB story will be to prove that the information gathered by citizens made difference in/really contributed to the democratic process.
I fear that our argument will be weak if we cant demonstrate that effect.
If the information gathered by citizen journalists was irrelevant/not useful for the democratic process, we cant consider that citizen journalists had any power.
In that case the citizen journalism wouldnt mean more than some addition of media material. But no more than that...
However, I think that is not easy to fit such event into the documentary that we decided to do.
The LB are an excellent story of citizen journalism, but I am not sure that whether such event demonstrates the empowerment of people in the democratic game.
As far as I see it, citizen journalism means journalism made by ordinary people. That is to say, the gathering and revelation of information being virtually made by all, instead of being limited to the narrow group of the journalists.
More citizen journalism means that more information will be gathered, from more sources, in more places and situations.
However, it doesnt necessarily mean that those citizens who become journalists have more power.
Nonetheless, lets try to "save" the story and fit it into our documentary:
1. the first thing to do is to agree upon what means empowerment. considering our discussions, I would say that: empowerment means having a more decisive role in the democratic process.
2. In my opinion, the democratic process has 3 or 4 different stages: (i) acquisition of information, (ii) discussion - which includes (iia) presentation of proposals, (iib) and argumentation and discussion of proposals -, and (iii) deliberation.
(the process is circular: after every deliberation the agents are suposed to gather information about, and discuss, the execution or not of the deliberation, its impact, new facts that may require new deliberation; and,
the process is not necessarily formal: most of the blogs that discuss politics or policies fit mostly in the (ii) stage, but can also fit in the (i) stage to the extent they reveal information relevant to the democratic process);
3. I think that the type of citizen journalism in London Bombings fits mostly in the (i) stage. Citizens got more powerfull, because they used technologies to disclose very relevant events (to the society and the democratic process).
Citizen journalism like such in LB (where people mostly gather information) adds a very important news-source to the demoratic process.
A story like LB doesnt assure that we will have more proposals or discussion of proposals in our society. But it may demonstrate that citizens have a new role in the democratic process: gathering information. Citizens are no longer passive and waiting for the class of journalists feed them with information. Citizens became active pieces of the (i) stage of the democratic process. Citizens are empowered because they can really contribute/enhance the democratic debate by fueling its basis: the information.
4. I think that our biggest challenge with the LB story will be to prove that the information gathered by citizens made difference in/really contributed to the democratic process.
I fear that our argument will be weak if we cant demonstrate that effect.
If the information gathered by citizen journalists was irrelevant/not useful for the democratic process, we cant consider that citizen journalists had any power.
In that case the citizen journalism wouldnt mean more than some addition of media material. But no more than that...
Saturday, November 10, 2007
I saw Helen Boaden, Head of BBC News, speak last week at HBS and she said the most pivotal event for citizen journalism (she actually prefers the terms citizen news-gathering) for the UK and the BBC was the 7/7 bombings. A huge number of people submitted video from mobile phones, camera photos, and webcam clips. She believes technology can empower citizens as it did on this (sad) day.
Potentials to interview:
Helen Boaden, Head of BBC News - +44 208 7438000
A representative from the London Underground; +44845 604 4141
Citizen Contributors; speak to BBC
UK police representative; +44 2076012222
UK government representative;
The terrorists?
Challenges:
This story will be difficult as it is primarily based in London and we are over here in Boston.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)