Everyone Deletes Tom

.

“What! What did you say? Anyone can do it too?”

The world is in a frenzy. They’re all discussing UGC or UCC. (yep another acronym to further alienate us - user generated content and user contributed content). More and more we’re hearing people talk about citizen journalism. By definition citizen journalism involves public participation in the generation of news content.

So! The common people are expressing views, creating content and sharing it.

The common people are playing an active role. Hmmmm….

What I find intensely problematic about the notion (or labeling) of citizen journalism is the explicit connotations of qualified and the unqualified, the legitamised and illegitimate, the endorsed (by brand) and the unbacked.

Now, I am in no way at any point playing down the craft of journalism. I appreciate a person dedicating their days to researching, writing and publishing news and information in papers, magazines, online and in broadcast. What I’m saying is that it is all legitimate.

What I am saying is that if you need to discuss any kind of content generation in an us vs them narrative by using terms like citizen journalists… well then. You just don’t get it!

Of course, those of us who are 100% pro user driven content and contribution are also usually opensource lovers, democratic media thinkers and free speech supporters. We’re engaged in the world around us, we want to participate and we often question the validity of the dominate voice. Something that I believe should be taught in schools along with comprehension topics. How about teaching students to be discerning?

We speak and discuss the possibilities of user generated content online quite differently to traditional media publishers, their producers and the journalists they employ. These players are on the most part cautious, slightly inspired, but mostly concerned.

The publishers are talking about quality, trust and not just content! Oh, no. Compelling content as though they are the best qualified to do that. The publishers are talking about trust. Trust in them because of the brands they have built. What I’m hearing are the sounds of a big business and a venerable industry clutching on and being protectionists. What they’re really saying is that the future is here – we can’t delay it much longer but we have a value proposition for you.

We’ll be the ones you can trust.
We’ll be the ones who do the quality control.
We’ll vet your information.
We’ll only show what is important.
And we’ll tell you how it really is.

Quality control, vetting information, organizing information and quality publishing are totally required, I agree. But as you can see on newsvine, provided with a good engine, we’re all perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves. Journalists and common people together.

But!

Leave the trust bit up to me thanks.

Citizens haven’t always been that great at being discerning with media, but I think in this changing landscape they are quickly learning for themsleves that they have too.

Until now, we’ve trusted the highly emotive and partisan views of mass media outlets.

Until now, my physical reality networks have digested carefully crafted scripts about a legitimate War on Terror because if your not with Bush then your part of the Axis of Evil. (title case on purpose) We’ve been listening to mass media scripts that describe the tragic deaths of women and children in Iraq as “collateral damage” or rather, accidentally whoopsies so that we don’t have to think about it or take responsibility. Now days many outlets are prepared to talk about “casualties”, because the war hasn’t really worked out too well and they have stopped investing their supporting in the former Prime Minister John Howard. We must note that this shift in language is a highly divisive and manipulative form of communication.

What is important about this example is that the media failed to question the government until it was too late. And, at large, we failed to question the media.

The future looks different. Everyone knows there is a shift that’s been taking place for quite sometime from passive consumption to active participation collaboration and contribution.

Users can decide what is newsworthy. Users can decide what is legitimate. We will discuss and debate what a legitimate view of the world is, or what is not.

Users on newsvine, current_tv and the Noise Festival, to name a few are already engaging in community driven content where citizens (journalists too) push the content they choose is compelling, they rate, vote, comment and debate.

We are choosing what is legitimate, what we trust and are fully capable of being discerning about the information we receive. Thank you very much.

Any less is as corrupt as saying - we’ll endorse free speech, but not yours, only ours. Which, we just might just be doing with big money business controlling the memes and sitting in government pockets.

So. If you talk about citizen journalism you don’t get it. Because you just can’t hold on to us and them thinking for long. The lunatics really are running the asylum.

Watch out for my next post titled - “We’re all specialists” or “Not just eyeballs”… vote now. :]