Journalism comes full circle with civic/citizen movement

Boston, where AEJMC will convene in 2009, is where it all started 318 years ago.

In Boston, arguably, was America’s earliest journalism practiced. In Boston lived the earliest printer-editors, two Benjamins and two Franklins: Benjamin Harris’ quirky, chatty Publick Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestick (1690), of which only one issue was ever published, was a veritable coffeehouse in newsprint. James/Ben Franklin’s wry New-England Courant (1721-23) frequently offered Ben’s pseudonymous byline, “Silence Dogood.”

The early printers were citizens first, community activists second, and editors if at all. They weren't J-school trained in any nuance of reporting, pagination or ethics (why, Ben Franklin published his own letters as if sent by readers).

Their work was not to be measured by Siebert’s theories or Hutchins’ norms.

But in all of American journalism’s history – the Revolution, the penny decades, the Civil War, Pulitzer/Hearst, the muckrakers/Progressives, the age of broadcasting – if successful editors had a common denominator, it was a finger on the readers' pulse.

A function of that finger on the pulse is the reporter’s craving to connect to an audience, to decide the news, to influence public opinion. It's the craving that makes journalism; the rest is literature.

Any surprise there’s a reflection of democracy in journalism?

But does journalism’s quid pro quo with democracy offer a frame to decipher the newspaper industry’s current travails? Perhaps institutionalization shields the journalist from the reader’s pulse? Perhaps pulse journalism can by itself guarantee profits? Or trump sound economics? – even if the one really a subset of the other? If news and advertising are the two sides of a piece of toast which side is buttered? Ah, that last was a joke.

From small-town Lansing State Journal to venerated New York Times, the urban newspaper's holy grail lies in finding a structural cure for falling circulations (ibuprofen won't cure a Migraine).

Can civic/citizen journalism offer that grail?

Look at the expectations. From the Times to CNN, America’s loftiest media organizations are welcoming the obscurest iReporter, the lowliest blogger, for his or her proactive journalism, a phenomenon which J.D. Lasica has classified in some detail. They are clearly trying to touch communities – in a reflection of David Perry’s call to use journalism to enhance social capital, or Buzz Merritt’s cry for a public journalism.

Perry's and Merritt's work, of course, is too famous to elaborate here.

As is Philip Meyer's call for newspapers to focus on a "leadership audience." Or Leonard Witt's pitch for a “representative” journalism, the idea of using not organizational but communal resources to subsidize the cost of journalism. And Jeff Jarvis' now ancient postulate: “Don't give the people control of media, and you will lose.”

Clearly, scholars and journalists alike are feeling a sharp excitement. Inevitably, it seems, America's legacy media must accept that a YouTubization – allowing the collective intelligence of the “former audience” (to use Dan Gillmor's gravid lexicon) to distill the news – is the sexy new way to keep news accurate, cheap and exciting.

Has journalism come full circle from the era of Harris and the Franklins, or what?

Nikhil Moro, Ph.D.

Invitation to join AEJMC panel proposal

Burton St. John of Old Dominion University asked if I would blog the following announcement. Please send any response to Burt by October 7.

"Have you been noticing how mainstream, independent and citizen journalists have been starting to run into more problems with law enforcement? For example, during the St. Paul Republican National Convention, police actively investigated, detained and/or arrested journalists as diverse as an AP photographer, three members of indymedia outlet Democracy Now and citizen journalists from the group Eyewitness Video.

"I am putting together a panel proposal tentatively called 'Law Enforcement and Journalists: Security versus Rights' for next year's AEJMC conference which runs Aug 5-8 in Boston. If you're researching the tensions between law enforcement and the press please feel free to email me (bsaintjo@odu.edu) by October 7. Please provide a short synopsis of your proposed presentation. As a board member of the Civic and Citizen Journalism Group, which would sponsor this panel, I am especially interested in seeing suggested panel items that touch upon what these evolving tensions mean for journalism's assertions of its perceived rights in society today, and what implications the developments may hold for journalism's assertions in the future. -- Dr. Burton St. John III."

Nikhil Moro, Ph.D.

Call for panel proposals for 2009 AEJMC convention in Boston (due by Oct. 15)

6 September 2008

The Civic & Citizen Journalism Interest Group (CCJIG) invites proposals for engaging panels for the 2009 AEJMC convention in Boston.

Please email your panel proposal to Co-Vice Chair Mary Beth Callie as a Word attachment by October 15.

Past panels have focused on blogging, civic mapping, community conversations, newsroom projects, legal/ethical issues in civic or citizen journalism, using Internet polling, focus groups and other methods in civic reporting, practicing civic and citizen journalism in a multicultural environment, using new technologies, the history/philosophy of civic journalism, and teaching civic and citizen journalism.

The 2008 convention in Chicago continued to hone the direction of the field. Panel proposals for 2009 may address, but are not limited to, the following broad themes:

1. Citizen/civic journalism in the 2008 presidential campaigns

2. Media convergence as a catalyst of citizen journalism

3. Emerging models in practice, sustenance, and teaching of civic/citizen journalism

4. Collective intelligence (crowdsourcing) vs. information gateways ( traditional gatekeeper role of press).

In general, address topics which are relevant to current discussions in journalism, politics, technology, democracy, or philosophy. Panels addressing issues of cultural and racial diversity are encouraged.

Your panel proposal should mention the following components in order: Type (i.e., PF&R, Teaching, Research), a tentative title, a possible moderator, the possible panelists (limit to three so we can work on linking with other interest groups and divisions), a brief description of the panel, and possible co-sponsors (divisions or interest groups). Please follow this format as closely as possible.

Selected proposals are compiled into a single document, with proposals from other divisions and interest groups, in order to be considered for c0-sponsorship and scheduling. Many will later be revised or expanded as part of the joint planning process.

A sample proposal is available at http://www.has.vcu.edu/civic-journalism/Sample_Panel_Proposal.doc

We look forward to your proposals!

Mary Beth Callie, Ph.D.
mcallie@regis.edu
Co-Vice Chair, Civic & Citizen Journalism Interest Group

Transformation, emergence and norms: The promise of another great year

As CCJIG's incoming head for 2008-09, my big, big welcome to you.

What a year it promises to be! An engaging, and in many ways historic, presidential campaign is upon us. Emerging technologies have gone beyond "disrupting" newsrooms/studios to set norms for journalism practice/assessment. Convergence, of technologies and of skills, is the great new catalyst. Models of sustaining civic and citizen journalism are evolving as quickly as ever. The mass media's buffeting by gales of transformation continues, in business models and in consumer patronage. Journalism programs are increasingly using classrooms to address the pedagogy/practice of civic and citizen journalism. The collective intelligence is taking on traditional gatekeeping roles like never before.

Clearly, our field is growing in several directions all at an unprecedented pace. It is as relevant to democracy, to the media industries, as ever. And, as Sue Ellen Christian's bibliography evidenced, the scholars are catching up. More books, more research, more deliberation. Folks, we have a movement going!

In a day or two CCJIG will publish, on this blog and in other forums, our annual call for panel proposals. Please send your proposal in. Let's plan a stimulating agenda for Boston in 2009, as we did for Chicago in 2008.

As I take charge I would like to express deep gratitude to Jack Rosenberry, the outgoing head, for his captaincy in 2007-08. Jack's eye for detail might make him something of a legend if a history of our group is ever written. I'd like to also acknowledge the other outgoing officers for their enthusiastic service.

Let's keep the conversation going!

Nikhil Moro, Ph.D.
Chair, Civic & Citizen Journalism Interest Group, 2008-09

Pre-Con Videos Available Online

A video of the pre-convention presentation on the "Past, Present and Future of Civic Journalism," produced by our friends and hosts at Columbia College of Chicago, is now available online. The link to view it is:

http://biverson.blip.tv/#1230293

This presentation was made Tuesday Aug. 5 at Columbia College, and includes three very interesting and informative panels featuring leading scholars in the fields of civic and citizen journalism.

Many thanks once again go to Barbara Iverson, Suzanne McBride and all of the folks at Columbia for their warm welcome and outstanding assistance in making their campus and facilities available to us, and for producing this video.

CCJIG Meeting Report -- Chicago Convention

Minutes for the CCJIG Annual Members’ Meeting

Date: Thursday, August 7, 2008

During AEJMC annual convention in Chicago, Ill.

7:45 p.m.-meeting called to order by Jack Rosenberry, outgoing chair

People in attendance: Jack Rosenberry, Kirsten Johnson, Glenn Scott, Burton St. John, Jeff South, Len Witt, Jeanette Foreman, Clyde Bentley, Mary Beth Callie, Jeff Neely, Andrea Breemer Frantz, Sue Ellen Christian, Cheryl Gibbs. Each gave a brief introduction of himself/herself.

Election of officers

Nikhil Moro, Central Michigan: Chair

Mary Beth Callie, Regis: Vice-Chair

Glenn Scott, Elon/Burton St. John, Old Dominion: Research

Jeff South, Virginia Commonwealth: Teaching/Webmaster

Clyde Bentley, Missouri: PF&R

Kirsten Johnson, Elizabethtown: Secretary

Need to send out a call for a co vice-chair

Announcements:

Renewal Petition-yes, we’ve been renewed

$4,600 in our account

2008 accomplishments included good slate of convention programming, approval of bylaws and construction of bibliography

New Business:

Dues will remain at $10.00

-Len-motion, Andrea-second

Motion approved

This year there were no top paper awards given due to notification about them inadvertently being left out of the paper call. Incoming research chairs were asked to make sure that next year’s call includes information about a top paper award given to both a faculty and graduate student paper. Motion to increase the top paper awards for each category to $150 was approved. Winner of the top graduate student paper also gets complimentary conference registration from AEJMC.

Motion to bring back the plaques given to paper winners and former chairs was approved. All future chairs will receive plaques, and a plaque will be given to Jack for his service this year.

Panel ideas: Not too early to start thinking about these!

New Initiatives:

Clean up the bibliography

Joint venture between the Community and Civic and Citizen Journalism interest groups to disseminate research to industry, as discussed by the two groups together before the formal members’ meetings started. How we do this will be an ongoing discussion on the blog.

Teaching ideas posted on a Web site

General Discussion “For the Good of the Order”:

Membership seems to be holding steady. It stands at 107, up 15% over three years

Is there a way to post the papers that were presented at the conference online or link to them?

How can we promote the division more effectively? New member breakfasts—hand out a pamphlet? Link from pjnet?

Think about putting our call for papers on the graduate student listserv.

Participate in the mid-winter event?

Think about a special 2010 event

8:50-p.m. Meeting adjourned.

Submitted by Kirsten Johnson, Secretary

Virtual Community or Private Club?

I've blogged before about the efforts of my hometown newspaper, the Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle, to promote citizen journalism on its Web site. (See archived blog entry from March 14, 2008.) In my judgment, the editors* are sincere in their efforts to use the Web site to build a virtual community that supports and enhances the "real world" community.
(*Disclosure note: the top editors of this paper and leaders of this effort are friends and former colleagues, as I worked at this paper for more than 20 years full and part time.)

But I noticed something recently regarding audience reaction that makes me wonder whether the development of an online community supportive of the geographic one is really happening with regard to one of the tools the paper hopes will accomplish this -- the threaded message board forums.

Since the D&C relaunched the site, I've been regularly reading and occasionally participating in the forums. One thing that stood out was the large number of "regulars" among the participants. So one night recently I did a quick study of the frequent posters and their contributions, and came to some surprising conclusions. The forum area, a Gannett template using software called Pluck, conveniently reports total number of threads and posts in each forum area, and also reports stats with each user's avatar about their most recent post and total number of posts. That provided the data needed.

On the evening I did the analysis (July 17, 2008), the total number of postings since the March re-launch was slightly more than 10,000 (10,356 to be precise) in 42 forums. The individual forum totals ranged from around 4,100 posts in the "Open Forum" (where threads of any topic may be started) to zero posts in some of them. The forums devoted to individual communities are notably under-used; among the 14 devoted to Monroe County towns most have only a handful of threads and at most a few dozen posts, sometimes months old. Two forums dedicated to neighboring rural counties have total postings in the single digits.

But what was really interesting was the user analysis. By going through the most popular threads and looking at the most-frequent posters, I compiled a list of what I believe to be the "top 20" users based on total number of postings. (Disclosure note no. 2: that's not based on an exhaustive review, but I believe it to be reliable. In other words, in my quick review of the forums I may have missed one or two individuals who belong in the "top 20." But if I did that wouldn't change the numbers; if anything, it would make the results MORE top-heavy.)

Among these frequent posters, the top three accounted for nearly a QUARTER of the total postings. Together just three pepole tallied 2,481 postings out of the 10,356, or 24 percent. Notably, these three know each other and a great many of their posts are basically conversations among themselves. Two are friends -- a couple, actually -- and the third is an antagonist whose postings frequently are insults directed toward those two or rebuttals of insults they have made against him.

Working down the list, the "top 10" posters (including these three and seven others) accounted for about 40 percent of the posts -- 4,228 out of 10,356. Just 20 frequent posters accounted for more than HALF the total -- 5,337 out of 10,356, or 53.5 percent. I was, frankly, surprised that it was that heavily skewed.

The goal of setting up forums is to provide a community "conversational commons." And 10,000 entries since early March averages out to more than 500 a week, nearly 80 a day. Taken at face-value, those numbers seem to be reasonable indicators of good community conversations developing. And some of the forums are explicitly linked to off-line communities of interest, including area oenophiles and young professionals, and many conversations there are specifically tied in to offline community activities such as meetings and events. These are very explicit efforts to support the offline community with the communication tools of the online community, and something the paper is very committed to encouraging.

Also, the forums are not the only place citizens can partiicpate on the D&C's site. The paper has a number of designated community bloggers whose blogs appear on the same page with several staff blog. Any registered user also can maintain a blog, and most-recent entries are featured on the same page as those staff and community bloggers. An editors' blog allows readers to register questions and concerns about coverage and many stories have online chats associated with them where readers can comment separately from the general forums area.

But as this drilling-down into the numbers indicates, among the general forums only a tiny fraction of the user community is actually accounting for a large proportion of the activity, creating the potential for conversations to get lost in the "noise" generated by a huge number of postings by the regulars. The situation could be analogous to people who want to get into a conversation at a party but can't because it's dominated by a few fast-talkers who never let others get a word in edgewise. In the D&C's case, it probably doesn't help that the "top three" have a reputation for being aggressive and often insulting in their comments, primarily to other regulars but sometimes to newcomers as well. (One of the top three has boasted in forum postings that he does this intentionally as a conversational tactic, to see if newcomers will stand up for themselves or "run," i.e. quit posting.)

There's no real answer to this conundrum. If a forum is open to the community, then it must be open; it makes no sense to put limits on how frequently or how many postings an individual may make. And it's not as if there is any sort of upper limit on the number of entries in a thread, so postings by the heaviest participants don't prevent others from joining in -- except in the sense that people wishing to join the conversation might not because the thread looks like a small-group activity not welcoming to outsiders. (The party analogy again.)

I'm curious what others make of this. When we talk about "news as a conversation" does this qualify? Is it a useful exercise for the community just to have the facilities for a conversational commons available, even if they are dominated by a relative handful of users? Is it a useful exercise for the news organization that sponsors it? Does anyone know of any research into this phenomenon that is more systematic than my back-of-the-envelope quantitative case study? Comments would be welcomed and appreciated!