At the center of the Dahlgren article is one of the most important aspects of the topic of citizen journalism: only those who truly desire to, and believe that they do, have a say in society will participate. The author cites that in an era of democratic uncertainty and constant turmoil people want their voices to be heard. It is not simply a concept of saying things for the sake of it, people want their opinions to matter.
Through my use of Storify and my analysis of the Hermida article, I have found that both citizen journalists and professional journalists alike now have the tools necessary to truly create something special for those who read what they produce. The ease and simplicity of use of Storify sincerely astounded me. Although I cannot see myself producing more content than necessary, simply because of economic reasons, it is a resource that I will now humbly appreciate. Hermida outlines how it is almost a necessity now for professional publications to utilize the tools afforded by social media or risk falling behind the pace and brevity of citizen journalists.
I completely agree with Burns and Highfield when they state that Twitter may be more than random thoughts or opines; it affords users (and producers) the opportunity to become a gatekeeper for news. The ability to retweet is vital in this regard. Let's look at an example:
The New York Times is breaking a story that Mitt Romney's dog has died (levity I know, but for the sake of humour, necessary). I do not follow The New York Times but someone - anyone - that I follow does. Within seconds I now have access to information that I otherwise would not have known.
The use of the retweet feature is only one in a bevy of tools associated with all types of social media. I agree that sometimes clarity and verification - fundamental journalistic integrity measures - can be sacrificed in the face of a large story when using Twitter.
What I do not agree with is the notion that "produsers" are becoming the norm on Twitter. Although some users may feel inclined to participate in producing original content, we must admit that most do not feel that same inclination. I certainly do not. Citizen journalism is about expressing your viewpoints and reporting news when you believe it will make a difference to those who read what you produce. My thoughts are twofold.
Firstly, in line with the ideas put forth by Dahlgren, people only feel a need to produce online content when something important is at stake. The Arab Spring, conflicts in Mali and Nigeria; these are problems that we may not otherwise have full access to without the use of citizen journalism. Cabinet changes in the Ontario government, the winners at the Oscars; these are issues/non-issues that myriad professional news outlets have granted me access to at no cost.
Secondly, in line with my previous blog posts and their economic subtext, I am simply not willing to produce content for free unless some other benefit exists. Jenkins and Thorburn faltered in their article, that putting forth a false optimism and relying on the thought that most individuals desire to indulge in citizen journalism. I would argue that most individuals do not desire to indulge in citizen journalism. I enjoy reaping the rewards from the journalism of others, professional or otherwise, but there is no incentive for me to get involved beyond a rudimentary standpoint.
To conclude, the technological advancements of the past decade and the decades before that have been immediately influential to the reporting of news and opinions around the world. The advent and subsequent development of social media for this same effect has proliferated possibilities. However, without adequate incentives (remuneration, social progress) in the developed world, most users will never become producers.
Photo credit attributed to user: Stuart Miles on freedigitalphotos.net
