Definition of ‘Network’ - an association of individuals having a common interest, formed to provide mutual assistance, helpful information, or the like. So adding the word ‘network’ before the word ‘journalism’ does not sit paradoxically against one and other at all in fact it’s something which actually fits rather nice and neatly together.
Traditional journalism always relied upon building up information networks and contacts. Ok, at one time it possibly meant pounding the streets to find the contact with the specific subject knowledge you needed, or in more recent times picking up the phone, then the mobile phone, then more recently still being able to send an email. Now thanks to the wonder of web 2.0, things have progressed and our list of contacts and sources has increased beyond belief, our network has increased way beyond the newsroom.
Recently, we were asked in the lecture “What will be the media organisations job in the future if network journalism kicks off?” and “what will be the role of the news room?”
Without a crystal ball, who can say but I think what has already become clear is that news has and must continue to be a process of collaboration. Take a look at Jeff Jarvis’ diagram of the ‘new news process’ just to fully appreciate how much network journalism has opened up a much more conversational style of journalism and the multitude of layers which now exist in the process making. I can’t see any reason why UGC and journalists can’t work together to help one another, expanding the newsroom into the community. In a time of financial insecurity, and constant cut backs in media organisations surely it just makes sense. If members of the public are in a particular place when an incident occurs then let them get involved in news making. The images we all saw of 7/7 have taught us how important it is that the public get involved and share things with media organisations. These people were there at the scene long before the reporters and camera crews, and were able to capture the immediacy of the event.
Social networking sites, wikis, twitter and message boards and forums are communities. At first I was a bit pessimistic about them, not really fully understanding how they could be of benefit in terms of news. However, within the short space of time I’ve been using them I now see the scope they offer. They are in many ways just an active and extra large extension of the traditional contacts book - an extra means of accessing information.
In order to ensure accuracy and reliability I hope journalists always remain as gatekeepers of news but that they allow the public to contribute in the production of it. As Charlie Beckett warns, it is after all in the interest of the media to embrace network journalism and to stop seeing ourselves as owners but instead as collaborators.
1 comment:
I agree, I think the two things complement each other very well.
But it goes further than just extending our contacts book. This could - and is - changing the news agenda.
Groups like Spot.us are working with a network to create the agenda, research it, publish it and share it. The network is asked to contribute a donation, a question to be researched and then is involved with the journalists from the team from there.
Have a look at their home page which sets out their model, they're closed at the mo while they get set up - but it promises to be really interesting.
And like you, the more part of the community we can be - I think the stronger position we will be in to help that community get its story heard.
Something that journalists have been trying to do, with varying success, for as long as we've been around.
Post a Comment