New book examines 'Public Journalism 2.0'

Co-editors Jack Rosenberry (St. John Fisher College) and Burton St. John III (Old Dominion University) have published the edited volume Public Journalism 2.0: The Promise and Reality of a Citizen-Engaged Press (2010, Routledge).

Across 13 chapters, the book examines both the roots and contemporary dynamics of civic and citizen journalism and posits how public journalism can inform future journalistic endeavors.

In addition to a provocative "state of the practice" piece by Buzz Merritt -- an instrumental founder of the public journalism movement -- the book features original research, case studies and essays by scholars such as Joyce Nip, David Ryfe, Serena Carpenter, Donica Mensing, Sue Robinson and Aaron Barlow. The volume also features interviews with Tanni Haas, Lewis Friedland and Jan Schaffer.

This book can serve as a resource for classes in contemporary journalism practice and theory, especially for exploring how professionals and amateurs can effectively work together to develop a more relevant and citizen-engaged press.

Each chapter also features a summary area that offers, for pedagogical use, key theoretical and practical implications and reflection questions. As summarized by Routledge: "This collection establishes how public journalism principles and practices offers journalists, scholars, and citizens insights into how digital technology and other contemporary practices can increase civic engagement and improve public life."

Big day in Civic Journalism history

(Disclosure: The author of this post is also a co-author of the work discussed in it.)

On this day in journalism history, Feb. 9, 1990: Knight-Ridder Corp. CEO Jim Batten offers his views on newspapers and community as he is presented with the William Allen White Award by the University of Kansas and the William Allen White Foundation.

* * *

If there is a signalizing moment in the early history of the civic or public journalism movement, Batten’s address deserves consideration for the honor because of the prominence of the person offering the ideas (CEO of a major, well-respected news organization) and the timing, a couple of years into the experimentation that later came to be identified as public journalism.

Batten’s address was published by KU as a booklet, but copies of it have been relatively hard to come by – until now. Partly in honor of its 20th anniversary, the address been re-published (with permission of KU and the White Foundation) in a new book by CCJIG officers Jack Rosenberry and Burton St. John III, titled Public Journalism 2.0: The Promise and Reality of a Citizen Engaged Press (Routledge, 2010).

On the one hand, there was no “kick off” moment for the public journalism movement, which grew organically from various experiments – not coincidentally, many of them within Knight-Ridder. But as Rosenberry and St. John write in introducing Batten’s speech as a chapter of the work:

One must be careful about oversubscribing significance to isolated events. For example, it would be inaccurate to say that the environmental movement began with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring or that the push for African-American civil rights began with Rosa Parks’ refusal to sit at the back of the bus. Yet these happenings are seen as signal events that inspired people and helped to spread isolated and episodic initiatives into coordinated causes that touched upon concerns of the wider population.

There certainly is no direct line from the post-1988-election experiments in improved civic coverage that were among the first public journalism experiments to Batten’s speech in 1990 to the 600-plus public journalism projects identified by Sandy Nichols and Lew Friedland a few years later. But his talk was without question a blaze along the trail.

While by no means a history, Rosenberry and St. John’s book explores some of public journalism’s past as a way to inform the present evolution of participatory journalism and offer ideas for how it might enhance civic engagement. The title, in fact, is meant as a word play on “2.0” being computer lingo for an upgrade from the original version of a work and the 20th anniversary of the 1990 Batten speech. Along with Batten’s piece, the book consists of a series of contributions by journalism scholars including (in alphabetical order) Aaron Barlow, Serena Carpenter, Cathy DeShano, Lewis A. Friedland, Tanni Haas, Kirsten Johnson, Suzanne McBride, Donica Mensing, Davis “Buzz” Merritt, Kim Nakho, Joyce Nip, Sue Robinson, David Ryfe and Jan Schaffer.

Fall newsletter now available

Check out CCJIG's fall newsletter, which is no longer printed and mailed but is available as a PDF on the CCJIG Web site.

This issue includes coverage of the 2009 convention in Boston, the panel call for next year's convention in Denver and details about two mid-year events, plus ideas for bringing crowdsourcing into the classroom.

Call for panel proposals for the 2010 AEJMC convention in Denver (due Oct. 15)

7 September 2009

The Civic & Citizen Journalism Interest Group (CCJIG) invites proposals for engaging panels for the 2010 AEJMC convention in Denver.

Please email your panel proposal to Co-Vice Chair Deborah Chung (dchung@uky.edu) as a Word attachment by October 15.

Past panels have focused on blogging discourse, credibility of citizen journalism practices, citizen contributions and politics, user collaborative activities, community conversations in hyperlocal media, newsroom projects, practicing civic and citizen journalism in a multicultural environment, and teaching civic and citizen journalism.

Panel proposals for 2010 may address, but are not limited to, the following broad themes:

1. Emerging models and best practices in teaching of civic/citizen journalism
2. Civic/citizen journalism conversations over health care legislation
3. Citizen-sponsored or citizen-involved journalism, particularly focused on environmental, health, and social issues.
4. Media convergence and using new tools to facilitate citizen journalism
5. Local/global practices and perceptions of civic/citizen journalism.

In general, address topics that 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, possible co-sponsors (divisions or interest groups), and contact information.  Also provide speaker demographic and funding estimates (see sample proposal).

Selected proposals are compiled into a single document, with proposals from other divisions and interest groups, in order to be considered for co-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_09.doc

We look forward to your proposals!

Deborah S. Chung, Ph.D.
dchung@uky.edu
Co-Vice Chair, Civic & Citizen Journalism Interest Group

How a citizen investigator shook the state's conscience

This week's New Yorker contains some devastating journalism by staff writer David Grann.

Mr. Grann's is the type of story that must be read by every student of reporting -- and by every deadwood hack who has ever tried to wring poetry from journalism.

It supports my hunch that great journalism is not about mushy platitudes or feel-good prose, but, rather, about exploring -- and with luck, exposing -- jarring truths.

Mr. Grann exposes a particularly jarring truth: How, in an arrest culminating in an execution, the state of Texas failed justice -- failed it systematically via the due processes of trial, appeal, and clemency -- thus realizing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's eerie old fear (expressed via a concurring opinion joined by Anthony Kennedy in Herrara v. Collins (1993)):

[T]he execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event.

But the real reason I blog about Mr. Grann's penetrating story is Elizabeth Gilbert of Houston, Texas, the citizen investigator whom he spotlights.

Ms. Gilbert is a friend-of-the-underdog activist whose selfless effort -- even though she ends up buoyed-up by her prisoner subject -- is an example in perseverance, particularly for wannabe citizen journalists.

Check out Ms. Gilbert's tenacious compassion in the must-read story, here. Meanwhile, to Mr. Grann I say, take a bow.

What's the link between virtual discussion, civic engagement?

DISCLOSURE NOTE: This is a cross-post from my personal blog - JR

Just skimmed over the recent report on The Internet and Civic Engagement from The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (available here). Interesting stuff about how civic engagement generally and online posting about political issues are correlated. It definitely will require a deeper read.

I'm especially interested to see if it sheds any light on something that I think is a critical, but under-rated, aspect of the whole issue surrounding online civic engagement: the question of causality.

In other words, are people who are just naturally inclined (for whatever reason) to become social/political activists using the Internet as one more tool to communicate, the way earlier generations of activists used newsletters, phone-trees, mailing lists, etc.? Or, does the ability to build communities of interests around specific agendas (political or otherwise) using interactive online communcation really lead people to become engaged in civic matters when they otherwise would not have done so (if the online tools weren't there)?

I've tried to explore some of this in my own research and the evidence I've seen on it is kind of mixed, but leans toward the first of those approaches; i.e., that people tend to be civic activists first. Joining social networks, discussion forums, and the like is just a natural progression for them, building on their innate interests to become involved. Despite the ease and efficiency of becoming "virtually engaged" in civic matters, the Internet isn't creating large-scale civic engagement out of nothing as some of the "cyberutopians" predicted it might back in the early days of its development.

There probably isn't a definitive answer here, and in fact there may be causal influences both ways -- that someone with a mild tendency to be engaged who participates in online civic engagement strengthens that natural tendency, which makes them even more inclined to become more engaged virtually. In other words, a feedback loop develops.

Like I said, it will be interesting to read the Pew report more thoroughly to see if it says anything about these issues. If anyone has any thoughts or ideas about this or suggestions for other research in the area to look at, I would be interested to hear them.

PS: Thank you to CCJIG stalwart Len Witt at PJNet.org for his post about this report, which led me to it.

Town Halls and Civic Journalism

As news media across the country report on the "August revolt" at Democratic town hall meetings, many don't seem to take a critical look at how the meetings are being conducted, or to offer alternatives.   

In Public Journalism and Public Life: Why Telling the News is Not Enough (1998), Davis "Buzz" Merritt, one of the founders of the civic journalism movement, wrote that "[public/civic journalism] moves beyond the limited mission of telling the news to a broader mission of helping public life go well, and out of that imperative. When public life is going well, true deliberation occurs and leads to potential solutions."     

From that public perspective, we might ask what types of coverage could help public life go well and facilitate deliberation. Are just the stories of disruption and shouting getting most of the headlines?  Do these town hall meetings have ground rules?  Are there instances of town hall meeting with basic ground rules and facilitation?  What might be the role of the press?  What are the alternatives?  

First, Slate.com's Explainer answers the question, "do town halls have rules," with a resounding no.   Political town halls are generally informal gatherings where constituents can have their voice heard.  The process is up to the organizer.  Town hall meetings are the descendants of New England "town meetings."  Since the 1600s, town governments of New England have held highly regimented meetings for decision-making.   

For some instances of town hall meetings on health care reform that had  ground rules or different formats, see:

• Editorial Board blog at DemocratAndChronicle.com Rochester, NY area  
  
• Front page news story in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, "Strong but civil discussion marks health care event," complete with "Speaking Rules" sidebar
• Markey to share George Washington's 'Rules of Civility' at meeting, the Coloradoan.com 
• "Walz and Sebelius find 'Teletownhall' success: a useful health-care discussion without chants, shouts,"  MinnPost.com

For more insight on consensus building alternatives, see:  

• "Health Care Reform and a Plea for Civility" column in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.  Jim Gallaway profiles  Mark DeMoss, a Republican Southern Baptist who founded the bipartisan organization, civilityproject.org
• Martin Carcasson, director of Colorado State University's Center for Public Deliberation, "Dealing with High Emotion and 'Staged Anger': Tips for Legislators"-- post with analysis and suggestions on the National Center for Dialogue and Deliberation listserv.
• Listen to Martin Carcasson and Peter Levine on the NPR/WHYY-FM call-in program, "Radio Times"--podcast
• Members of the National Dialogue and Deliberation respond on blogs and more.
• New York Times op-ed, "Town Halls by Invitation" by James Fishkin, director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University.   
  
• Lawrence Susskind,  director of Harvard's Public Disputes program and founder of the Consensus Building Institute points asks: "Would you throw someone with no diplomatic experience into a high-level peace-making situation? I hope not. They'd get eaten alive. Would you throw someone into a red or blue leadership role who had no formal training in negotiation or consensus building? We do it all the time! Legal, political, administrative, or corporate experience is not necessarily consensus-building experience.  See   "How Should You Respond to the noisy health care reform critics" and "Hey, C'mon why can't Red and Blues agree"  on Susskind's blog.  

 Mary Beth Callie

 CCJIG chair, 2009-10

Regis University, Denver