How do communities evaluate quality in citizen journalism?

When individual members of a community are evaluating the quality of citizen journalism, many will hold their own personal opinions on what they consider quality journalism. However, a simple, general way to assess and evaluate the quality of citizen journalism, and any online, information-based content, is by applying the CARS checklist, that is Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness and Support.

Firstly, CREDIBILITY. This should be applied to both the content and information, and the author. In order to evaluate the credibility of the content and information, communities need to consider whether or not the information is based on sufficient, factual evidence; and whether or not enough evidence and information is provided to substantiate a reasonable conclusion. Secondly, communities need to establish whether or not the author is a trustworthy and reliable source of information. Although citizen journalism allows journalists the freedom to express their opinion more openly than mainstream media, quality articles still need to be supported by factual information and credible support. Citizen journalists with a wide collection of articles and archives will most likely be credible sources, especially if they are supported by other credible sources. The McGraw-Hill Online Learning Centre for Student Success suggests these checks for author credibility:

• Author’s education, training, and/or experience in a field relevant to the information. Look for biographical information, the author’s title, or position of employment
• Author’s contact information (e-mail or postal mail address, telephone number)
• Organizational authorship from a known and respected organization (corporate, governmental, or non-profit)
• Organizational authorship reflecting an appropriate area of expertise
• Author’s reputation or standing among peers.

Next, communities need to assess the ACCURACY of the content. The main goal of this is to "ensure that the information is actually correct: up-to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive" (McGraw-Hill 2003). This relates not only to the information and content, but also to the way it is written, including spelling and grammatical errors. We need to remember that although anyone CAN be a journalist with citizen journalism, that is not to say that everything they produce IS journalism (Wilson 2008). Generally, frequent bloggers will produce higher quality journalism and writing as they have more experience in the field.

Thirdly, to evaluate quality we need to assess REASONABLENESS. This is difficult to assess in citizen journalism because, as mentioned earlier, a major appeal of citizen journalism is that it allows journalists to express their opinion and be biased. However, the journalist still needs to present a fair, objective, moderate and consistent argument (McGraw-Hill 2003). The argument should be balanced and reasonable, and although authors can voice their own opinions, they should also consider the other sides of the story, especially when presenting to a mass audience.

Finally, we need to assess whether or not the journalism has been SUPPORTED by reliable sources and information. Links to other stories or sources supporting their opinion and information are proof that they are presenting reliable, quality information. All major claims should be supported by citations and references, and documentation of these sources should be supplied. If a citizen journalist has sufficient support to there argument, then it will most certainly be a quality source of information.

By applying this general assessment, communities will be able to differentiate the quality citizen journalists, from those that BELIEVE they are journalists, but really really aren't....

Reference:

Wilson, J. 2008, May 08. Week 10 Lecture: Citizen Journalism. Brisbane: QUT. [Lecture: KCB201].

NB: this may not be the correct name for the lecture… when the slides are uploaded I will change it accordingly!

How are today's youth engaging with news media?

Young people’s engagement with news media has come a long way from simply reading a newspaper or watching the news on television. Since the introduction of Web 2.0, news has become available in a variety of forms, including blogs and podcasts. However, contrasting to traditional forms of media, audiences are now able to not only absorb news in a one-way relationship, but comment on and respond to news, and even develop and compose their own news stories, forming a two-way relationship. Web 2.0 has transformed journalism into a practice that anyone can engage in, not just a profession. A university degree or employment with a media institution is no longer required – all that is needed is something as simple as a computer or a video phone.

One example of this is citizen journalism - media made by non-professional journalists, and can include things such as blogs (such as Investigative Blog and Online Journalism Blog), podcasts (such as The Pod Lounge) and the use of YouTube. Although there are many criticisms questioning whether or not citizen journalism is real journalism, I believe that it helps young people to engage with and develop a better understanding of the news and public information, especially journalism which recontextualises and reversions existing information. This is what Saunders refers to in his 2006 thesis, Citizen Media and Investigative Journalism as Hartley’s notion of redactive journalism - journalism that is made by editing, and makes sense of publicly available information. This may include anything from the cut-and-paste of bloggers to the remix news of political satire programs such as The Daily Show (Saunders 2006). Not only do the creators of redactive journalism engage with the news, but readers and those participating also engage with it, perhaps gaining a better understanding of the information than they would with a more conventional news source.

I believe that although it may not always be the most RELIABLE source of news, the new wave of citizen and redactive journalism can be far more informative than traditional news sources. Not only are they more easily accessible and cheaper to produce, but they allow audiences to ENGAGE with the information, responding, recontextualising and editing information, providing their personal opinions and interpretations.