Another, slightly humorous clip on what Citizen Journalism is…

It remains to be seen as to whether citizen journalism will revolutionise news media on a global scale. It has made a considerable impact, of that there is no doubt. But how pronounced will this change be? Is there still a role for the professional journalist in today’s social-media dominated world? Is citizen journalism trustworthy? Is it always a socially constructive practice?

By synthesizing the data we have gathered in our four case studies we hope to answer these questions. We will also attempt to predict the path of citizen journalism as it moves forward.

It is undeniably clear that a range of issues face the practice of citizen journalism. Four common threads within our case studies highlight such issues. A deeper analysis of such threads will allow one a greater understanding of both the glories and pitfalls of citizen journalism.

Credibility – Can citizen journalists be trusted?

“We don’t all wire our own houses, so we shouldn’t all write our own news” – Paul Knox, Ryerson University

Is one undermining the role of a professional journalist to suggest that anyone with Internet access and a basic grasp of the language can master an art some spend years studying?

As with anything, context is essential.

Credibility is often the very reason many people choose to receive content from a citizen journalist over a so-called ‘professional’. In three case studies (South Korea, Iran and Malaysia) we see a public without faith in its media institutions. We see a citizenry looking for answers, and finding them amongst the vast, unmediated world of the web.

In these cases, credibility is assumed. Iranian citizen journalists (or tweeters) risked imprisonment or other forms of harsh punishment if found to be disseminating incriminating information to the outside world. Surely one risking their life to report what they are seeing is trustworthy, if not a little sensationalised.

Though citizen journalism does not always take on such a decisive role. Sometimes, it is no more than a hobby, an amateur practice. Mistakes are made.

Proponents of professional media publications will highlight the strict code of ethics all reporters must follow. Many respectable and reputable professional broadcasters follow such codes with a great deal of conviction. Others however, don’t.

Never before has the world been so ‘content-rich’. With the click of a mouse one has access to a vast array of professional and amateur news material.

Undoubtedly, some of this content will be untrustworthy. Though one cannot assume that this material will lie solely within amateur reporting. Nor can one assume that such material is solely the work of professionals.

In an age of skepticism it is the consumer that will decide who or what they want to believe. Mechanisms of gauging reputation will prosper and gain prominence, and those reporting unfactual material will be found out.

A range of studies are documenting a change in mentality towards internet-based content.

A study carried out by The Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2004 noted a severe decline in newspaper trust, seeing newspaper trust drop from 80% in 1985 to 59% in 2003. The Digital Journalism Credibility Study carried out in Washington DC revealed that, overall, people ‘tended to have positive attitudes towards the credibility of online news sources’. Surveying politically interested users, Johnson and Kaye (2002) found that online users saw online content as more credible than traditional media.

In the world of journalism, credibility is of paramount importance. The increased media literacy and engagement of a generation will ensure that any piece of content, whether professionally produced or not, will be subject to the harsh realities of a fact-checking, skeptical, credibility-demanding audience. False news can be reported, but can just as quickly be shut down, and made a mockery of.

Remediation – The 24/7 global news arena

“Our culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: ideally, it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiplying them.” – David Bolter

Remediation, as suggested by David Bolter, refers to moving across different media, transforming along the way (old media to new media).  Bolter notes that the media environment today allows us a unique look at remediation, as new media continues to grow, building upon old media, and old media tries to catch up, incorporating new media tactics. We can see this happening in the case studies we have presented in this blog.

Remediation in modern terms incorporates two major factors: Immediacy and Hypermediacy.

Immediacy describes when media allows one to become immersed in an experience, to come as close as we can to real life, so that the medium disappears. Then the viewer experiences entirely new content, with no noticeable medium. We can see this tendency a lot in reality shows, video games, and web pages that allow the user to interact with the content.

Hypermediacy refers to multiple media at once- text, image and video may all work simultaneously, emphasizing the multiple channels available to experience similar content.  An example would be the “windowed” screen of a computer. The user is repeatedly brought back into contact with the interface as they goes back and forth between reading text, watching video, studying images, then clicking on new windows (or tabs) to access more media.

Another example would be a 24-hour news television channel, like CNN.  There is never one set of text or one picture on the screen- the viewer sees at least one video or talking head, plus text headlines, plus the ticker-tape with stock quotes and breaking news at the bottom of the screen.

It is human nature to remediate technologies. The book remediated wall scribing, and the iPad and Kindle are now remediating the book. It is an inevitable process.

And as with all these new technologies, time will tell where they improve upon their predecessors and where they fail.

In the case of citizen journalism debates such as censorship and credibility of the practise are yet to really mature. We can see in the cases of Twitter, as a citizen journalism tool and a research source for professional journalism, that the validity of these new technologies as a reliable and worthy journalism medium are as of yet to be fully explored.

Only time will tell.

Social Media – The first port of call

“We don’t have a choice on whether we do social media. The question is how we do it”- Eric Qualman (author)

For the first time in history, everyone can be producers and consumers of media. Social media is a fundamental shift in the way we communicate. There are three main reasons for the social media revolution- Independence, Accessibility and Influence.

All four case studies illustrate how social media can be a powerful tool for free speech. In the Malaysiakini.com case study, the staggering popularity shows a trust in citizen journalism that is lacking in the bureaucratic media organisations. Many Malaysian citizens believe Malaysiakini.com is a better alternative to the government controlled press.

OhMyNews is a similar example where not every citizen was being represented by the market-driven South Korean press. The media was controlled by a handful of powerful organisations, each with their own agenda.  In contrast, OhMyNews delivered high quality content in an independent voice. The Internet has provided the platform for everyone to take part in conversation and feedback. Through the Internet, anyone has the ability to challenge the system or at the very least, let their voice be heard.

Sometimes citizen journalism is the only option. In the case of the 2009 Iran elections, traditional media was banned from reporting from Tehran. To make matters worse, there were restrictions on foreign media. Without citizen journalism, the world would not have seen harrowing shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan.

In an event as widespread as the Mumbai Terror Attacks, only social media could produce rapid content to keep up with developments. Through social media platforms, events can be reported as they are happening – not just after. Platforms such as Twitter also allow for information to be dispersed in a quick and effective manner all over the world. Because the Internet is borderless, there are no limitations to who can access social media.

There is one final important trend developing from the four case studies. More than ever, people want to take part in sharing and reporting stories. Participation is empowering and this why the influence of social media will continue to grow.

Censorship – Who’s in control of what you consume?

“Censorship is advertising paid by the government”- Federico Fellini (Film Director)

When we think about censorship in the media, we would always think about the limitations and suppression of speech in which the government holds the fort. In some parts of the world, the government controls the media. This means that any material considered immoral or harmful, or that threatens the “stability” (which in most cases means the government’s own power base) of the country is restricted from being broadcasted or published.

In all four of the case studies that we have done, censorship in the mainstream media has little or a lot effect on why citizen journalism began to emerge as a popular practice.

In the Malaysiakini.com case, the nation began to seek alternate sources for their dose of truthful news after learning how the government plays a huge role in what was being reported to the country. In Malaysia, journalists are frequently given guidelines by the Prime Minister’s Office when reporting ‘sensitive’ issues, and media self-censorship is encouraged.

Similar example can also be observed in the OhMyNews case where the media is being controlled by a number of powerful organizations with their own motives.

Ultimately censorship comes from those who have power. We have found that said power entirely belongs to the government. The government maintains a close relationship with the media in order to control and filter what was being reported in the news.

A reading by Senter, Reynolds, and Gruenenfelder (2005) provide a detailed analysis of the relationship between the government and the media, concluding that the presidency has the potential to influence the press. These findings highlight how people in power can influence the distribution of information and, in essence, can shape our understanding of the world.

In the debate of censorship in the media, the media should be real enough reflect the society but subtle enough to keep it humane. With development and change, the future of the media could be brighter without so much influence by the government.

In conclusion..

To dismiss citizen journalism’s proliferation as anything less than revolutionary ignores the enourmous impact it has had on the current media landscape. As the media world evolves and develops, citizen journalism and professional journalism will be forced to collaborate and cooperate. An unprecedented influx of new technology has offered a generation of politically and socially engaged individuals the chance to voice their opinions in an arena in which they will be heard. As ‘OhmyNews’ so aptly states, now,  every citizen is a reporter

In the June of 2009, the election of the president of Iran, Mahmound Ahmadinejad, caused a major unrest amongst major cities in Iran and around the world starting June 13, 2009. The protests are against the alleged victory of Iranian President Mahmound Ahmadinejad and in support of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

The protests have been given several titles by their proponents including Green Revolution, Green Wave or Sea of Green, reflection Mousavi’s campaign colour, and also Persian Awakening.

The events have also been nicknamed the “Twitter Revolution” because of the protesters’ reliance on Twitter and other social-networking Internet sites to communicate with each other.

Social networking sites such as Twitter have been a major focal point of the protests against the Islamic regime. As in the aftermath of the disputed presidential elections in June 2009, anti-government protesters have been posting hundreds of accounts, photos and videos of the latest clashes on the micro-blogging network.

With foreign media facing tough restrictions by the Iranian authorities and state-controlled media which is mistrusted by most of the country’s population, posts on Twitter, although difficult to verify, provide a vivid insight into the chaotic situation on the streets of Iran. For example “mamad202” condemned the coverage of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) as “propaganda” in a series of tweets.

The situation in Iran was a perfect setup for spotlighting the strengths of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, particularly when the professional media are hobbled. As protests and violence erupted following the June 13 declaration of victory for President Mahmound Ahmadinejad, the Iranian government mounted a full-force effort to block images and news offices being raided and equipment confiscated, journalists arrested and beaten, broadcast signals jammed and Internet access blocked. On June 16, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance banned foreign journalists from leaving their offices to cover the story. Four days later, foreign journalists were ordered not to report on the demonstrations at all without permission from Iranian authorities.

That left private individuals, risking arrest and serious physical harm, to provide the world with images and updates. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s New Media Index, the top two news-related videos on YouTube from June 13 through 19 were amateur footage of protests in Tehran. The most iconic and wrenching image of the entire ordeal was a shaky video clip of the death of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, who was reportedly shot by security forces during one of the protests. There’s no doubt citizen journalism played a critical role in the world’s understanding of events that transpired there.

The following video clip is of Neda Agha-Soltan. It is an example of the videos from the Iran protests that have been uploaded to Youtube.

This video starts with photos, and then shows a recording of Neda Agha-Soltan – (begins at 50 seconds in)

Warning: This video is very graphic – it contains coverage of a real victim who has been shot

Citizen journalism has played a key role in the coverage of the revolts. The traditional media, which is banned from reporting from Tehran, have had to feed off the bloggers rather than do their own reporting or shift through thousands of often apocryphal posts from unknown writers.

Twitter provided news from Iran that was fast and effective, with most of it coming from within Tehran. This went on to be re-tweeted all around the world. With the bans on foreign reporters, journalists on the outside had to rely on Twitter and other sites to provide them with content. Twitter made it possible for the Iran election protests to become documented global news.

This short clip on Youtube explains the reliance that foreign Journalists have had to place on social networking technologies such as Twitter.

The use of citizen media provokes the question of authenticity of social networking media.  By its very design Twitter’s credibility is uncertain. It’s simply impossible to pack much context into its 140 characters. Therefore Twitter and similar technologies face a problem. On one side these technologies can provide a voice that would otherwise not be heard, but at the same time can we trust that voice?

The June 16 edition of “The Daily Show” exemplifies this dilemma. The show opened by criticising professional news organisations – in particular CNN – that were turning to Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites in lieu of verifiable information about what was taking place in Tehran. Host Jon Stewart especially enjoyed the anchors’ disclaimers that “we’re relaxing our usual vetting process a bit” and “we cannot verify readily some of this material that we’re going to show you.”

So what does this mean for Twitter as a journalistic tool?

There are both positive and negatives to this question. One of the great advantages of Twitter as a journalism tool s its immediacy and concise content. Learning from foreign blogs is a long and tedious process. During a time of crisis who has time to read and translate blog posts when people are dying on the streets and the readership is demanding up-to-date news? So its quite logical that Twitter has emerged as a key source of news and updates from Tehran.

After all you can view photos, videos and/or text updates from the Iranian streets that resurface on blogs just a few hours later.

However the ability to verify content, or the lack of, is a major problem for Twitter and other social networking sites used as media content in professional practice.

References

Batty, D 2009, “Iran: Twitter becomes focal point of protests”, Guardian Unlimited, Guardian Newspapers Limited, pp.1-2

Morozov, E 2009, “Iran: Downside to the “Twitter Revolution””, Dissent pp.14-14

Paiser, B, “Amateur Content’s Start Turn: The MSM’s ample use of unverified citizen material from Iran raises serious questions.”, The online Frontier, American Journalism Review pp. 42

The attacks were a grim reminder of the constant threat of terrorism the world faces. The media also faces difficulties in covering events so widespread and spontaneous such as this one. So it was important that the Mumbai terror attacks was a major milestone in citizen journalism. Twitter, the text-based microblogging service announced its arrival as a major player in citizen journalism. Other social networking sites such as photo-sharing database, Flickr and personal blogs were also crucial in providing live news and information.

Amidst the mayhem and chaos in Mumbai from November 26-29, Twitter became the best source for real time news during the attacks. All people had to do was type in #Mumbai to search for live developments. No international media even covered the first six hours of the attacks. Indian television and radio were reliant on eyewitness accounts. Even when international media outlets arrived on the scene, the scale of the attacks made it difficult to provide timely and comprehensive reports.

In contrast Twitter made it possible for news to be delivered fast and effectively from a variety of geographical locations. At the height of the attacks, there were 80 ‘tweets’ being sent to Twitter every five seconds. Due to the large dependence on social media, the New York Times labelled this the most documented terror attack ever. Twitter not only provided breaking news but was also used as an information tool for family and friends of those held hostage. Trapped hotel guests also used Twitter and SMS technology to get in touch with loved ones.

Without the spectacular growth in the telecommunications sector in India since 1994, it is doubtful whether social media would have played such a large part in covering the Mumbai terror attacks. Currently, India is home to the fastest growing middle class population in the world and they are benefiting most from the ‘Dotcom revolution.’

India has a growing perception of being a major power in the digital age. So is it not surprising that it has the fifth largest telecommunications sector in the world and the third largest in Asia only behind China and South Korea. Western countries, in particular America and Australia are providing more and more IT outsourcing as India continues to thrive in the digital age.

The most important legislation in the telecommunication sector was the ‘National Telecom Policy’ announced in May 1994. The premise behind this was to break down the dominance of public telecom companies. The legislation has certainly worked and currently private companies own 40 per cent of market share with that figure tipped to increase according to US International Trade Commission. Demand for cellular and Internet services is growing at 100 per cent per annum – one of the fastest growing rates in the world. There are two key reasons for this. Firstly the large rural and underdeveloped regions of India have a lot of catching up to do. Secondly, the emergence of private companies has led to all time low prices.

Mobile technology still dominates the telecom sector. There was an increase in mobile subscribers from 10 million in 2002 to 350 million in 2009. However during the terror attacks, mobile and fixed-line circuits were clogged due to high levels of activity so the Internet became an alternative medium for communication. These economic and government factors were essential in getting social media where it is today.

Twitter’s coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks was undoubtedly a breakthrough in citizen journalism in India. Now every citizen can assume the responsibility of being a reporter.  Take Arun Shanbhag for example;

The Harvard Medical School professor was in South Mumbai at the time of the attacks, across the road from the Taj Mahal Palace and the Tower Hotel. He described every blast and gunshot in his twitter account. Shanbhag says he felt a responsibility to share his view with the outside world. Shanbhag’s first tweet was: “Taj Hotel is a block from my house! Hostages still inside; still burning; smoke is pouring from windows; pics later.” It is doubtful mainstream media can provide such personal and emotive details that reflect the tragic situation. CNN picked up on Shanbag’s incredible story:

Twitter was also beneficial to the general public in other aspects. There was a togetherness in the Indian community that had never been seen before. Many twitter users sent pleas to blood donors to make their way to specific hospitals in Mumbai. Others tweeted information about helplines and other useful telephone numbers. Twitter also distributed links to other social media such as Flickr. Vinukumar Ranganathan was the most high profile blogger during the attacks. Twitter showed the world Ranganathan’s first-hand accounts via his blogs and Flickr.

So what does the future hold for Twitter?

There is an increasing need for social media as well as mainstream media to cover events. But there has to be a balance. As discussed previously, Twitter offers many positive aspects. However it has there are shortcomings like any other form of social media. For example, early tweets during the terror attacks reported that bombs went off at the Marriot Hotel which was not the case. There were also tweets perpetuating rumours that the Indian government had asked people to stop tweeting and compromising the security effort.

The information on Twitter is not verified and the sources cannot be trusted. It is ‘news’ but not ‘journalism’ as it does not offer context or balance. Twitter should be used together with mainstream media, not as an alternative to it.

References

28/11/2008, ‘Twitter, blogs provide riveting accounts of Mumbai attacks’, AFP http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gd5KpOLBPELdU7yODAe_rBn0qRJg

Caulfield B & Karmali N, 28/11/2008, ‘Mumbai: Twitter’s Moment’, Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/28/mumbai-twitter-sms-tech-internet-cx_bc_kn_1128mumbai.html

Wingram M, 26/11/2008, ‘Yes, Twitter is a source of Journalism’

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/11/26/yes-twitter-is-a-source-of-journalism/

Busari S, 28/11/2008, ‘Tweeting the Terror: How Social Media reacted to Mumbai’, CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/mumbai.twitter/

Verclas K, 27/11/2008, ‘Terror Attacks in Mumbai: Mobiles and Twitter play key role in 24/7 Reporting’.

http://mobileactive.org/terror-attacks-mumbai-mobiles-and-twitter-play-key-role-24-7-reporting

Mackey R, 26/11/2008, ‘Tracking the Mumbai Attacks’, The New York Times.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/tracking-the-mumbai-attacks/

28/11/2008, ‘Social Media & Citizen Journalism in the 11/26 Mumbai Terror Attacks: A Case Study.

http://www.gauravonomics.com/blog/social-media-citizen-journalism-in-the-1126-mumbai-terror-attacks-a-case-study/

Miniwatts Marketing Group, ‘Internet Usage Stats and Telecommunications Market Report’.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia/in.htm

Chowdary T, 25/05/2004, ‘Decade of Telecom Reforms’, The Hindu Business Line.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/05/25/stories/2004052500411000.htm

Greene W, ‘The Liberalization of India’s Telecommunications Sector: Implications for Trade and Investment’, United States International Trade Commission

Stelter B & Cohen N, 29/11/2008, ‘Citizen Journalists Provided Glimpses of Mumbai Attacks’, The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/asia/30twitter.html?_r=1

Ribeiro J, 28/11/2008, ‘In Mumbai, Bloggers and Twitter Offer Help to Relatives, PC World.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/154621/in_mumbai_bloggers_and_twitter_offer_help_to_relatives.html

Cohen N 2009, ‘Tweeting the News, Twitter Helps Reporters, Global Journalist, Volume 15, Issue 2.

(“Truth”, as the controversial filmmaker, Oliver Stone, suggests in his film, JFK, “often poses a threat to (state) power”.)

Use Google, Yahoo or any search engine of your choice and type in “Malaysiakini.com”. You will in an instant be directed to a neat-looking site filled with informative reports on Malaysia. “News and views that matters” may not capture your attention if you are not Malaysian or interested with the on-goings in Malaysia. However, it would definitely appeal to a Malaysian who is looking for fair reports on their world.

Malaysiakini is a political news website published in English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil. “With that, we are the only media organization which has the capacity to deliver news in all the four major languages across various platforms,” says editor-in-chief Steven Gan. In contrast to the past, the media has now evolved into a medium where technology play a huge role.

Since its launch on November 20, 1999, Malaysiakini has been widely considered to be one of the leading non-government owned paid-news agency in Malaysia. Compete.com (Compete provides information on traffic history, how sites compare against the competition, trust scores, ranked lists etc) estimates that Malaysiakini now attracts over 10,000 unique visitors in May 2009 while Alexa (a powerful tool used to rank website traffic) ranked malaysiakini.com as the 16th most popular web site in Malaysia in 2008.

Malaysiakini is really about the politics of “truth” in Malaysia.

Unlike most news sources in Malaysia, Malaysiakini remains free from government regulation and thus widely considered to be the country’s only credible, independent voice. Malaysiakini has gained both praise and notoriety by regularly covering subjects and viewpoints deemed taboo by the mainstream broadcast and print media; the fact that it is still allowed to operate is partly due to the Malaysian government’s tolerance regarding Internet censorship. The Malaysian government had pledged there would be no control and censorship of Internet content in line with efforts to create the Multimedia Super Corridor (a Government designated zone, designed to leapfrog Malaysia into the information and knowledge age). Therefore, the pledge is the loophole that Malaysiakini is exploiting.

On the matter of Internet censorship…

Although the Malaysian government has promised not to censor the Internet, effectively allowing bloggers to operate without a publishing license, citizen journalists/bloggers are still subject to a wide range of laws.

Part 5, Section 3.5 of the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Content Code states:

“The Online environment is not a legal vacuum. If something is illegal ‘off-line’, it will also be illegal ‘on-line’. In this matter, the relevant existing laws apply”.

In an attempt to encourage on-line journalistic professionalism and self-regulation, a number of local bloggers and citizen journalists have discussed establishing a bloggers organization where they can go beyond the limit in terms of reporting to the masses.

By facilitating the open sharing of ideas, information and perspectives, blogging in Malaysia has the potential to serve as a democratizing force in a country with little freedom of expression.

Democratic expectations of the local blogsphere must be tempered, however, with a realistic understanding of its limitations and the government’s authority, and sometimes coercive system of control.

With the government’s promise to not censor the Internet, wide ranges of politically contentious electronic media have emerged in Malaysia over the past several years in which includes the birth of Malaysiakini.

The Birth of Malaysiakini

In an interview with ZDNet Asia, Steven Gan, Malaysiakini’s co-founder and editor-in-chief whose strong belief is in free press mentioned, Malaysiakini was formed at the height of the Reformasi movement (reformation, in particular political reformation) in 1999, when the former Malaysian deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim had been arrested and virtually demonized by the mainstream media.

On this issue, the media wasn’t reporting in the manner they should. There was a lot of self-censorship and the only way for people to get information was from the Internet, from pro-Reformasi Web sites (pro-Reformation).

“There were active demonstrations on the street and a lot of people were looking for information that they weren’t getting from the mainstream media.”

So…

Malaysiakini was immediately set up to post researched and investigated news. Gan hired trained journalists and operated it very much like other media outfits (without the censorship, of course).

From the beginning of its launch, Malaysiakini delivers over 37 million page views and 750 000 video downloads per month to over 1.6 million absolute unique visitors.

Culturally, this proves that over the years, Malaysians has developed trust in the citizen journalists with the nation’s news and have come to depend on them for their dose of truthful news from the view of the citizens.

In terms of journalistic restrictions in Malaysia..

Media are impelled to practice self-censorship through the inherent threat and enforcement of a wide range of restrictive laws. These laws include: Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA), Sedition Act, Defamation Act, Official Secrets Act (OSA), Communication and Multimedia Act (CMA), and the Internal Security Act (ISA)

Despite these restrictions, Malaysiakini still hold their ground with their belief in free press and reporting the truth to the nation.

Because of this,

In 2003, Malaysiakini’s office was raided by the authorities after a complaint was filed by an arm of the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) against the site because of a letter it published which was deemed seditious. The Malaysian police seized all their CPU’s for investigation. This threatens Malaysiakini to be shut down entirely.

(Demonstrators hold a vigil outside of Malaysiakini’s office after police raided the place)

Photo taken from Malaysiakini.com

However, shutting down Malaysiakini was not a path Steven Gan and his team chose. With the support of their readers who loaned them CPU’s and small technical team who worked overtime to retrieve the back-up server despite having lost all their hardware, Malaysiakini went straight back in operation.

The future of citizen journalism in Malaysia

Journalism in new media has established itself throughout the years. With technology, media is made available in the most unthinkable ways. The Malaysian nation in beginning to seek news from other views besides government-controlled media sources for their dose of truthful and accurate news. For this, the nation has turned to the Internet as a new form of receiving news. This proves that the future for citizen journalists in Malaysia is as bright as ever and technology has made it possible for them to grow professionally.

References

Ho V, 15/04/2008, ‘Malaysiakini: Sparing no effort for the truth’, ZDNet Asia

://www.zdnetasia.com/malaysiakini-sparing-no-effort-for-the-truth-62040225.htm

Nadarajah N, ‘Malaysiakini: Malaysian Daily on the DotCom path to democracy’

http://www.cameco.org/mediaforum_pdf/mf3_4006.pdf

Gan S, 28/01/2003, ‘Press Freedom in Malaysia: The day they took our computers away’, Worldpress.org

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/919.cfm#down

Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘Interview with Steven Gan’

http://cpj.org/awards/2000/gan-interview.php

Merican D, 25/03/2010, ‘Malaysiakini wins top media brand award’

http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/malaysiakini-wins-top-media-brand-award/

Since at least the beginning of the 21st century this well-educated, tech-savvy nation has been engaging in participatory news-reportage on a widespread scale. But why? What led them to this?

A shonky Government? An insufficient existing press? Economic prosperity?

..

In 1987, South Korea was promised a western-style freedom of press after their authoritarian President Chun Doo-hwan was defeated by a more forward-thinking Roe Tae-woo. In the following years, South Korea’s media system made the transition from government-controlled to market-controlled.

Whilst this change was positive, its impact was generally heralded as reasonably insignificant. In reality, South Korea’s press system of the time was more of a freedom of the publishers, than a freedom of the people.

The market-oriented system Roe Tae-woo promised had arrived, but was not all it was cracked up to be.

Three newspapers, known collectively as ‘Chojoongdong’ (Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilboand Dong-Ah Ilbo), accounted for approximately 70% of readership, and its owners had majority shares in over 90% percent of newspaper companies.

Unsuprisingly, an oligopoly similar to that of the print media industry was apparent in Korea’s broadcast media industry of the time. Two major television stations, The Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) and the Munhwa Broadcasting System (MBS) accounted for more than 80% of broadcasting revenue.

It’s fair to say that at this point, the voice of the ‘everyday Korean’ was not appearing all too regularly in the mainstream press. The close realtionships prominent media moguls held with conservative, powerful politicians were reflected in most all forms of political reportage.

Essentially, South Korea’s pre-internet media system was a market-driven system producing content to suit the prerogatives of a few powerful entities. And such a reality left the citizenry of South Korea not only unheard, but also ill-informed.

For many years South Koreans dealt with this system. Zines and underground newspapers circulated, but made little impact. South Korea’s ethically corrupt system trickled along, slowly filling the pockets of its controllers.

Until.

The 2002 South Korean general elections.

It was finally time for the ‘Facebook generation’ to participate in the democratic process.

…and participate they did!

Distrusting of the mainstream press, this passionate and reform minded demographic took to the web. Some as campaigners, and some as citizen journalists.

The website OhmyNews gained legendary status throughout the election process for its pioneering role in the reportage of fair and unbiased news material. With the slogan ‘every citizen is a reporter’, OhmyNews chose to receive its content from ‘everyday citizens’ rather than professional journalists.

After being edited by a team of around 60 professional editors, news stories were published on the organisation’s website where they were subject to the interactive and dynamic arena of Web 2.0.

OhmyNews’ impact on the 2002 elections was considerable.

Proponents say it removed what many saw as ‘elite’ gatekeepers of information that decided for consumers the issues of importance. They also saw it as less susceptible to ethical problems previously discussed, such as political bias and corporate control.

At it’s peak, OhmyNews was said to be receiving 20 million hits a day. Quite a considerable number in a nation of 40 million.

With such a figure in mind, it is clear citizen journalism was a whole lot more than just a quirky fad utilised by a few tech-savvy youths.

Its widespread use reflects many aspects of the South Korean situation.

In an economic sense, citizen journalism’s proliferation is reflective of a globally felt technological revolution. Unprecedented access to professional standard resources allowed those unsatisfied with the mainstream press an arena to both share their thoughts and publish stories they deemed newsworthy. The affordability of such resources no longer lay solely in the hands of the economic powerhouses. When people have access, they will create. OhmyNews typifies such a point.

The increasingly participatory nature of South Korea’s news arena can be interpreted as reflective of overall feelings and trends of fairness and equality in the rapidly modernising nation. By creating and consuming their own (credible) news source, the Korean citizenry were empowered. They demonstrated to themselves and the world the capabilities of the Internet in relation to the democratisation of any society at large.

It is hard to correlate particular government policies with the proliferation of citizen journalism. In the South Korean context it is of more value to analyse citizen journalism’s impact on government policy.

The ability of citizen journalism to mobilise the constituent forced despondent politicians to reconsider their approach to both the media and campaigning efforts. The eventual success of Roe Tae-woo (the progressive candidate who successfully harnessed the internet as a campaigning tool) is symbolic of a general shift in government mentality.

Citizen journalism’s rise to prominence forced a greater sense of accountability. Media moguls with close ties to politicians no longer ruled the airwaves and print space and hence, Governments were forced to watch their back.

The South Korean constituent of 2002 were the most technologically literate group to ever decide the fate of a national election. At every stage of the electoral process, South Koreans harnessed the power of the web to create a wide-reaching and influential platform for free speech and open political discussion.

In the case of South Korea, citizen journalism triumphed. It was a catalyst for real change and a democratised a media industry.

Ten years on from its creation, OhmyNews continues to provide a platform for budding citizen reporters.

References

D. Kim & Johnson T. J (2009), A Shift in Media Credibility: Comparing Internet and Traditional News Sources in South Korea, International Communication Gazette, 71:4

Joyce, M (2007) The Citizen Journalism Web Site ‘OhmyNews’ and the 2002 South Korean Presidential Election, Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2007-15

National Internet Development Agency (NIDA)(2004), Survey on the computer and Internet usage, accessed October 9, 2009, http://isis.nic.or.kr/

Gillmor, D (2004) We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media