7th entry - "Citizen journalism"
I explored the Stomp website recently and began to ponder over the term "citizen journalism".
Stomp (acronym for Straits Times Online Mobile Print) is touted as "Asia's leading citizen-journalism website". On its "About Us" page, the website was said to resonate with Singaporeans. STOMP reportedly won the IFRA 2008 award for Best in Online Media, surpassing more established news websites like Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, South China Morning Post, Taiwan's Apple Daily and the Philippine Inquirer. According to IRFA, the award recognises publishers who have adopted digital media as part of their total product offer to meet the major changes in how people consume news and information.
The question I have in my mind is whether the success of STOMP is really a reflection of how Singaporeans consume "news". I even wonder about what "news" really means to Singaporeans.
Perhaps I'm too "outmoded" or even parochial in my perspective. To me, "news" is a term for a concisely written, carefully worded, thoroughly proofread and sensibly edited collection of articles published by professional journalists. News reflect what is currently important to society.
Of course, the type of news depends on the audience that the media is catering to. A major newspaper will report about political decisions, social phenomenon and economic issues that impact people on a larger scale. Local or specialty newspapers on the other hand zoom in on the details of everyday events that are nonetheless important to a smaller sub-group of people.
The way news is presented to readers has tremendous impact because of its power to influence public opinion, and with great power comes great responsibility. Hence, regardless of its scale, whether the focus is local or regional or international, news must be informational and factually accurate. News should as far as possible be unbiased, and opinion should be qualified. People who publish news must be mindful of their social responsibility.
To me, STOMP is essentially an opinion based online journal. One is unable to verify any facts being published there, and people who post "news" articles without needing to be responsible for being factually accurate. It does not matter to anyone whether they have verified what they see - they leave readers to decide for themselves. People are free to express themselves in any way.
I would caution readers of the website not to believe everything that they see and read on STOMP, or for that matter, anything they read online. They must be mindful that the contributors are not professionals and they do not need to post anything factual. And everyone knows that images can be digitally altered these days using imaging software. I also feel that people who post "news" on the website should exercise greater social responsibility. They should question their own motives for posting articles especially about seemingly "inconsiderate" members of public, and examine their own behaviour.
Let the ones who are sinless throw the first stone.
Stomp (acronym for Straits Times Online Mobile Print) is touted as "Asia's leading citizen-journalism website". On its "About Us" page, the website was said to resonate with Singaporeans. STOMP reportedly won the IFRA 2008 award for Best in Online Media, surpassing more established news websites like Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, South China Morning Post, Taiwan's Apple Daily and the Philippine Inquirer. According to IRFA, the award recognises publishers who have adopted digital media as part of their total product offer to meet the major changes in how people consume news and information.
The question I have in my mind is whether the success of STOMP is really a reflection of how Singaporeans consume "news". I even wonder about what "news" really means to Singaporeans.
Perhaps I'm too "outmoded" or even parochial in my perspective. To me, "news" is a term for a concisely written, carefully worded, thoroughly proofread and sensibly edited collection of articles published by professional journalists. News reflect what is currently important to society.
Of course, the type of news depends on the audience that the media is catering to. A major newspaper will report about political decisions, social phenomenon and economic issues that impact people on a larger scale. Local or specialty newspapers on the other hand zoom in on the details of everyday events that are nonetheless important to a smaller sub-group of people.
The way news is presented to readers has tremendous impact because of its power to influence public opinion, and with great power comes great responsibility. Hence, regardless of its scale, whether the focus is local or regional or international, news must be informational and factually accurate. News should as far as possible be unbiased, and opinion should be qualified. People who publish news must be mindful of their social responsibility.
To me, STOMP is essentially an opinion based online journal. One is unable to verify any facts being published there, and people who post "news" articles without needing to be responsible for being factually accurate. It does not matter to anyone whether they have verified what they see - they leave readers to decide for themselves. People are free to express themselves in any way.
I would caution readers of the website not to believe everything that they see and read on STOMP, or for that matter, anything they read online. They must be mindful that the contributors are not professionals and they do not need to post anything factual. And everyone knows that images can be digitally altered these days using imaging software. I also feel that people who post "news" on the website should exercise greater social responsibility. They should question their own motives for posting articles especially about seemingly "inconsiderate" members of public, and examine their own behaviour.
Let the ones who are sinless throw the first stone.
posted by sunshine wallflower at 10:58 AM
2 Comments:
If readers can't tell the difference between the writings of citizen journalists and those of so-called "professional" journalists, what does that say about the status of professional journalism? We think citizen journalists are the future of journalism because "pro" journalists have dropped the ball, become overly biased and not reliable.
Thanks for your comments. I do not think that citizen journalism is wrong, and it should be quite clear from what I had written. My point is that some "netizens" who are not discerning may end up believing everything that they read about on websites such as STOMP. This can be dangerous because facts are often not verified. For instance, someone posted a picture of a colleague on STOMP and accused him of being inconsiderate because he was sitting on seats that were reserved for physically disabled/ pregnant/ elderly passengers. That "citizen journalist" did not know that my colleague, who was in his 30s, was in fact recovering from surgery as he suffered a stroke attack, and thus he needed to sit because he easily felt tired. More than half of those who read the article felt enraged and started jumping on the bandwagon of hurling stones at him. Thankfully the damage done to his reputation was not severe. If citizen journalism is indeed the future of journalism, and socially irresponsible behaviour of journalists who are influential in the public domain remain unchecked, then I doubt that the direction journalism is heading towards will really be what we all want. Perhaps the National Association of Citizen Journalists could study this further?
Post a Comment
<< Home