Archive for category Uncategorized
By Patrick Smith
Rachel Sterne, founder and CEO of GroundReport.com, and Robert Mackey, blogger for The New York Times’ Lede Blog, discuss how they determine the credibility of news reports contributed online by unknown or anonymous users.
American journalist Rachel Anderson is looking to equip libyan youth with the tools they need to become more effective citizen journalists. She was embedded with Libyan youth throughout Febrary and March and now needs to raise $30,000 to train classes of 15 young people essential reporting skills and how to share their stories with the world through the web.
She is working alongside Small World News, a group specialised in training citizen journalists, who say their project in Libya aims to help people to “report on the revolution around them. The group functions as a make-shift newsroom, responsible for finding, filming and editing original stories. The goal is to create a self-sustaining citizen journalist movement that continues reporting after Anderson and other Western journalists leave Libya.”
If you would like to contribute to the cloud-funded project click here.
In vast countries like Nigeria the mainstream press doesn’t always have the kind of penetration into all areas that one might want. With government propaganda added into the mix, it’s often hard to get a picture of what is going on across the country. Citizen journalism can play an important role in plugging this gap. Shutterfeeds aims to do just that.
This is Nigeria’s first user generated photo agency. Covering everything from politics to fashion it has something to offer everyone. People in villages largely cut off from life in the rest of Nigeria are able to tell their stories though that most accessible medium, the photo.
With corruption and propaganda still a big problem in Nigeria Shutterfeeds aims to “decipher what is propaganda and what is not, providing alternative individualistic news sources”. With elections just around the corner the fledgling agency could play an important role in exposing any cases of violence or vote rigging that might arise.
I urge you to read Kaila Colbin’s eloquent blog on MediaPost, A Message From Christchurch On The Value Of User-Generated Content. As a survivor of the earthquake in Christchurch, Colbin argues that it is user generated content that allows life to go on, helps a stricken country reasess itself and gets aid quickly to those who need it. More importantly still, it connects people. She puts it far better than I could:
“In a disaster, UGC is not here for your entertainment. It is not competing with network news for ad dollars. It does not care whether you think it should be pitted against the professionals for a journalism award. It is a way for people experiencing the most significant event of their lives to bear witness, to cry out their pain and their suffering and their need, to connect with people close by who are sharing the experience and with people far away who, but for their voices, might mistake these events for a blockbuster movie filmed on a sound stage. No human can fail to be moved by the horrific tragedy of Japan, made so real by the user-generated content coming from that ravaged coastline — its very lack of professionalism making it so abundantly clear that there is no difference at all between us and them. In these turbulent times, we cannot afford to distance ourselves from the humanity at the other end of the camera, and from the reality that there but for the grace go we.”
Looking at her words, though, one thing is clear. User generated content is not doing anything new. It’s just doing it better. Reaching out to other survivors, recording personal testimonies of disasters, calling out to the rest of the world for help: these are things that humanity has been doing forever. The explosion of user generated content just enables these things to be done faster, more easily and on a bigger scale.
By Patrick Smith
There are reports coming out of Libya that Mohammad Nabbous, champion of user generated news in the country, has been killed in Libya. He was appenently shot by pro-Gaddafi troops in Benghazi on 19 March.
Nabbous set up Al-Hurra TV that broadcast on Livestream and featured videos made by Libyan citizens often from the front line or places not accessed by mainstream journalists.
There are many factors that have contributed to this downturn, but high among them is the adoption of many of Digg’s features by mainstream media. Its influential nature was its very downfall.
Back in 2006 when the site launched, the news agenda was dictated by large media corporations. Nowadays whether a news story goes viral and gets shared by large numbers of people is more important than where it features on a news site’s front page.
The number of shares that a story gets is the equivalent of a Digg ranking and most media companies now put substantial effort into generating this kind of interest in their stories. Nearly all now feature a plethora of share buttons for different platforms.
There have been other things that have contributed to the sites downfall. It has been dogged with criticism and controversy, not least last year’s Digg Patriots scandal. The Guardian revealed how conservatives were organising themselves to systematically clicking “bury” to downgrade stories deemed to have a liberal slant.
Digg is not dead yet but with all commentators predicting its demise it may not be long until its bell tolls.
Generating content does not have to mean creating something from scratch.
In fact, users are increasingly called on to re-generate content: make something interesting out of something boring.
Clever web-savvy users can turn incomprehensible data into something excting and enticing. Even the government has caught on to this.
Data.gov.uk is a government project that publishes data with the aim of ‘promoting innovation though encouraging the use and re-use of government data-sets.’
So the government has all this information. It doesn’t exactly know what to do with it- why not give it to the public and see what interesting things they can do?
I had a look at the data that the site holds on the homeless, and used data-visualising tool Many Eyes to turn it into something comprehensible. The end result is way more easy to digest than those reams and reams of spreadsheets, don’t you think?
Emily Fairbairn The world has stood transfixed as the tragic events in Japan unfold. All over the globe people were able to see instantly the scale of the devastation, thanks largely to the amount of content being posted online by survivors.
Tweets from Tokyo hit 1,200 per minute as the tsunami swept the Japanese coastline, and YouTube is flooded with shakily shot footage of the disaster. In fact, so many videos have been uploaded that the site is collating them on its CitizenTube channel.
It is at times like these that the power of the citizen journalist is reaffirmed. Only those at the scene of the disaster can truly tell the story, and thanks to the explosion of social media and new technology they can tell it better than ever. The last devastating earthquake to hit Japan, in 1995, was nowhere near as well documented. Now the world sees the destruction instantly and graphically, and what a sight it is.
Hopefully the shocking images and testimonials pouring out of Japan will help mobilise the aid effort as quickly as possible. In the mean time, the sheer scale of videos, blogs and tweets serve as a reminder of how much journalism has benefited from the rise of user generated content. How awful that it takes a disaster like this to do so.
Speaking in Toronto this week, Emily Bell, former head of digital at The Guardian, argued that newspapers must be ‘of the web, not just on the web’. She believes that the success of The Guardian’s website is down to it’s determination to embrace new opportunities offered by the internet. This includes user generated content, harnessed most strikingly by the Comment is Free section of the website. (You can read a great summary of Bell’s whole speech here at gigaom.com.)
As British newspapers scramble to cope with the impact of the web, the guardian.co.uk is undoubtedly one of the big success stories. It is certainly the most innovative, and this has been rewarded with more than 39m monthly browsers.
But this is dwarfed by the sheer might of the Mail Online, which attracts a massive 56m users per month.
And this is where it gets interesting. Because the Mail is the opposite of the Guardian. It doesn’t exactly ‘engage’ with its readers. It doesn’t run live blogs, or feature infographics, or podcasts, or any of the other web-only trinkets that the Guardian relies so heavily on. It rarely links to other articles. It’s journalists are not part of the Twitteratti, as the Guardian’s are; in fact, bar a few sports writers, Mail journalists keep themselves to themselves online and are far outnumbered by Mail-hating parodies, (@stopdailymail, @DailyWail, @DMReporter to name a few). Sure, you can comment on the Mail’s website, but you get the sense this is more people mouthing off rather than an actual engaged debate between users, which is what the Guardian has tried so hard to foster.
This goes against all of the received wisdom on making it big on the web. Paul Bradshaw, online journalism tutor at City University, argues that the arrogance of failing to engage, to link, to consciously stimulate debate online is traditional journalism’s single biggest flaw. In his opinion, fostering communities who talk to each other should be journalism’s most pressing aim:
“Any online operation that does not incorporate its users in production is not only democratically deficient, it is commercially inefficient.
Of course some are inclined to see user generated content as a mass of ignorance, abuse and waffle. Those people should ask how much work has been put into attracting good contributors? Into developing a healthy commenting culture? And how much has been invested into giving the good users a reason to keep coming back?”
The Mail is guilty of this very arrogance. It is essentially an old-fashioned newspaper, online. But it remains on top; you could hardly accuse it of being ‘commercially inefficient’.
The reason the Mail Online is so popular is simple; it runs great stories, with even better pictures. And, like the hard-copy Mail, it is persuasively laid-out (who can resist that pink showbiz sidebar?) The old maxim proves true: content is king. And it’s the kind of content that only the resources, access and well-honed skill of a traditional news institution could produce.
So how do we measure success online? Is it level of engagement, or is it pure hits? The Guardian or The Mail? I have a hunch what the advertisers might say.
By Emily Fairbairn
As a long-time contributor to HuffPo, Rushkoff writes that he was happy to write for free because it felt like he was part of a community and a more important purpose:
“There’s value being extracted from our labour, for sure, by advertisers or whoever, but the sense was always that we were writing for Arianna – contributing to an empire that spent its winnings bussing people to watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do their thing in Washington. Yes, there are compensating benefits – like getting links or hits or book sales – but it was a very soft quid pro quo based in a sense of shared purpose, and participation in a community beyond the mega-media-corporate sphere of influence.”
But now that HuffPo has been sold to AOL, Rushkoff is not so sure he will want to contribute anymore. So is this the key to user generated content?
When you ask someone to comment or contribute online, the likelihood is that you are asking them to do so for free. So they will need a good reason to expend their time and energy contributing to something which will undoubtedly in turn make money, somewhere, for somebody else.
If a user feels like they are part of something, like they are among other like-minded people, and that the site they are on MEANS something, then they will contribute. Content is rooted in community; you can’t create one without the other.