To be honest I’ve never used a citizen news website and if I’m being even more honest I didn’t really know they existed to extent that they do. I get most of my current affairs news stories from newspapers or traditional websites like msnbc.com. To be even more honest I probably never would have looked at a website like Current before having to critique it for class. However, as someone going into the communications field it is a good thing to be introduced of websites like Current because they are exactly that…current.
Current does a great job of using all of the technological advances in online communications by having citizen journalists upload their own video podcasts. They even have a handy how to section for those who are just becoming familiar with uploading onto their website. They also allow visitors to their website to vote on the top citizen video podcast that will be featured on television. I think this is a great opportunity that Current offers to showcase a non-traditional story by a citizen journalist to its television viewing audience because it says to them, “look what you can do with what is going on in your world.” It also shows how involved Current as a television station and host to the website are in monitoring and commending videos posted by citizen journalists to their site.
Looking at some of the top videos on the website, it is clear that the stories featured are non-traditional, but are relevant to those who made the videos and also to the audiences they are trying to capture. Some videos are about subject that major news outlets would normally not over, like Brenden Macaluso who recycles old computers and turns them into sustainable cardboard desktop computers. Some videos are about news topics such as Blackwater, a military company in Iraq being criticized for their killings of innocent civilians, and combine images and interviews used by major news outlets to show the story that they as the media aren’t showing to the public. Many of the videos I watched on Current show a variety of voices with a variety of sources (not including human interest stories) to report non-traditional stories, however, I think that the videos need to do a better job of citing the sources that the use throughout their pieces because for many sources in several videos I did not know who they were.
Another thing I really liked about the Current website was the ability for viewers to leave comments and discuss videos they have seen. I think as a citizen journalist site, citizen should be able to express their opinions about the videos posted to the site and all videos offer viewers the opportunity to comment. The voting for top video as gives viewers a chance to show a larger audience which video they thought was the most well put together. There is also a “People Are Talking” section that shows the comments that were just posted to different videos. I think the Current website does a great job of incorporating its viewers by letting them comment and showcasing their comments with its own section.
The only major thing that I found with watching some of the videos was that many of the news stories did not report a balanced story. The Blackwater video only reported on the negative things the companies has done in Iraq and made no attempt to hide their feelings that they were against its existence. However, as a citizen journalist it is the video makers duty to present a balanced story while also voicing their opinion. If this video was meant to be an editorial of sorts it should have put that within the story, like the video about the 13-year-old father clearly showed it was an “informania editorial” at the beginning of the video.
Overall, I think websites like Current that feature citizen journalists are a great idea. It showcases non-traditional stories and lets average citizens report news that they think is relevant to their local and sometimes national peers. I think Current is a great citizen website because it offers so many different stories, it allows its viewers many ways of interaction, and it has an active host in its television station.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Truth About The CJReport
I have never gone to a citizen journalism sites, maybe because I have no idea what citizen journal was. Right from the beginning the Top Story caught my attention about McCain. Since I found this story to be such an attention grabber I had to read it. The article obviously has no really reason to’ kill’ Americans just an amendment but the well thought head line made you want to read and understand what the author was trying to say about McCain As I scrolled down the page I found that more than half of the articles grabbed my attention The authors that put their stories on this site have very creative minds for thinking of headlines.
The best part was that the site was not just about the news and politics, there was also an article on Hollywood star, Heath Ledger. Since I am not a real big fan of politics I decided to go in a different direction and click the article called “Ledger ‘sure bet’ to with Golden Globe.” I was very interested in the article. I felt that is kept my attention as a reader and gave enough information for me to know about Ledger and the Golden Globes.
Also while scrolling down the original CJReport page I saw a girl standing there in a bra! I had no idea who it was until I clicked on her picture and realized I saw her on the show “I Love Money” and “Rock of Love.” I cannot get over her pictures she had posted, there so revealing and tasteless. I realized at the bottom of the page that her pictures were on their where comments from other people. The one person stated their opinion “I suggest she work on something meaningful and permanent because looks fade and that's all you seem to have.” I could not agree with them more.
The Nazi article was interesting. I would say it was one of my top two favorites when I was reading. I think I feel that way because I have studied and learned so much about the Holocaust during my religious Holocaust class I had last year. I also remember hearing about the experiments that the Nazi Army would conduct on the victims and I feel like I had a flash back to my class and the first thought I had when we talked about it then.
I feel that if the four articles that I read caught my attention so well that all the articles must do the same. There not to long either and every easy to read. They do provide enough information thou for you to understand the whole story. They keep the older stories on the board while having the date of when they were written. This site has a wide range of different stories and tells them in different ways. For example, some stories are narratives like the Russian story. I enjoy reading them because they are easy to understand. I hate when you are reading an article and when you are done you still do not know what you just read. This site was simple and to the point. I would defiantly go back and visit this site again.
The best part was that the site was not just about the news and politics, there was also an article on Hollywood star, Heath Ledger. Since I am not a real big fan of politics I decided to go in a different direction and click the article called “Ledger ‘sure bet’ to with Golden Globe.” I was very interested in the article. I felt that is kept my attention as a reader and gave enough information for me to know about Ledger and the Golden Globes.
Also while scrolling down the original CJReport page I saw a girl standing there in a bra! I had no idea who it was until I clicked on her picture and realized I saw her on the show “I Love Money” and “Rock of Love.” I cannot get over her pictures she had posted, there so revealing and tasteless. I realized at the bottom of the page that her pictures were on their where comments from other people. The one person stated their opinion “I suggest she work on something meaningful and permanent because looks fade and that's all you seem to have.” I could not agree with them more.
The Nazi article was interesting. I would say it was one of my top two favorites when I was reading. I think I feel that way because I have studied and learned so much about the Holocaust during my religious Holocaust class I had last year. I also remember hearing about the experiments that the Nazi Army would conduct on the victims and I feel like I had a flash back to my class and the first thought I had when we talked about it then.
I feel that if the four articles that I read caught my attention so well that all the articles must do the same. There not to long either and every easy to read. They do provide enough information thou for you to understand the whole story. They keep the older stories on the board while having the date of when they were written. This site has a wide range of different stories and tells them in different ways. For example, some stories are narratives like the Russian story. I enjoy reading them because they are easy to understand. I hate when you are reading an article and when you are done you still do not know what you just read. This site was simple and to the point. I would defiantly go back and visit this site again.
CNN iReport Critique
CNN iReport is a citizen journalist site that seems to be very popular (almost 240,000 worldwide reports). However, these numbers lead me to look for quality, not quantity. After browsing the site, there are positives, there are negatives, and in the end, we are left with nothing that is more than a subpar site.
One of the great things about the site is its easy access. Anyone can sign up, so long as you have a valid e-mail address. Anyone who has the internet can watch the videos. The site is very navigable, finding a video is very simple. The homepage consists of both a fresh news section, as well as a “Newsiest Now” section. So the homepage brings attention to what would be both the newest and most substantial videos.
Another quality of this site I will have to remain impartial on is the tagline. “Unedited. Unfiltered. News.” That is the heading of the page. What makes the idea of citizen journalism great is it can bring daily issues to the frontline of news, and citizens can take a definite stand, and be strong in supporting their beliefs. As long as the video shows no law breaking, I believe that citizen journalism should be purely unedited. Let every expletive ring, so long as it is covering a substantial news topic.
The disadvantage to this unfiltered news is the fact that just about anything can go up on this website. That being the problem, I would have expected to hear profanity, maybe see some graphic images covering very sensitive issues, but that was not the unfiltered quality I got. I logged on to find a new video posted entitled “G-mail Fails.” The title sounds relevant, namely because in order to blog on this site, I need G-mail. Why is it a failing mail server? What are the issues?
The video showed nothing other than a man on camera for 22 seconds saying he could not access his e-mail. He mentioned their website not mentioning any issues. He mentioned that people rely on their e-mail. The man made valid points, but I hardly consider a mail server being down for less than an hour news, especially if the video covering it is only 22 seconds long. I love the free speech approach. Let the citizens give any news they want, but filter it to make sure it is actually news.
I logged onto a website that was affiliated with the biggest exclusively news television station in the country, what I found was a guy talking about how he cannot access his e-mail, who won the Oscars, and pictures of Mardi Gras. Mardi Gras and the Oscars are two huge events that get so much mass media coverage, and this citizen journalist site gave coverage no more in depth, no more real, and no more substantial than the mass media.
I understand some blame has to go with the citizens. The stories that are covered are nothing we can’t find in the mass media, and CNN does not post them. However, at the end of the day, the CNN logo is on this page. This site allows too many picture slideshows to come across as in depth journalism, and CNN for credibility’s sake needs to filter.
One of the great things about the site is its easy access. Anyone can sign up, so long as you have a valid e-mail address. Anyone who has the internet can watch the videos. The site is very navigable, finding a video is very simple. The homepage consists of both a fresh news section, as well as a “Newsiest Now” section. So the homepage brings attention to what would be both the newest and most substantial videos.
Another quality of this site I will have to remain impartial on is the tagline. “Unedited. Unfiltered. News.” That is the heading of the page. What makes the idea of citizen journalism great is it can bring daily issues to the frontline of news, and citizens can take a definite stand, and be strong in supporting their beliefs. As long as the video shows no law breaking, I believe that citizen journalism should be purely unedited. Let every expletive ring, so long as it is covering a substantial news topic.
The disadvantage to this unfiltered news is the fact that just about anything can go up on this website. That being the problem, I would have expected to hear profanity, maybe see some graphic images covering very sensitive issues, but that was not the unfiltered quality I got. I logged on to find a new video posted entitled “G-mail Fails.” The title sounds relevant, namely because in order to blog on this site, I need G-mail. Why is it a failing mail server? What are the issues?
The video showed nothing other than a man on camera for 22 seconds saying he could not access his e-mail. He mentioned their website not mentioning any issues. He mentioned that people rely on their e-mail. The man made valid points, but I hardly consider a mail server being down for less than an hour news, especially if the video covering it is only 22 seconds long. I love the free speech approach. Let the citizens give any news they want, but filter it to make sure it is actually news.
I logged onto a website that was affiliated with the biggest exclusively news television station in the country, what I found was a guy talking about how he cannot access his e-mail, who won the Oscars, and pictures of Mardi Gras. Mardi Gras and the Oscars are two huge events that get so much mass media coverage, and this citizen journalist site gave coverage no more in depth, no more real, and no more substantial than the mass media.
I understand some blame has to go with the citizens. The stories that are covered are nothing we can’t find in the mass media, and CNN does not post them. However, at the end of the day, the CNN logo is on this page. This site allows too many picture slideshows to come across as in depth journalism, and CNN for credibility’s sake needs to filter.
Citizen Journalism: The Current
For my critique on citizen reporting websites I critiqued Current. I had no clue what Current was until this assignment. The website overall, did a decent job explaining what Current is, how it works and how their current journalism program works.
The main purpose of Current’s website is to connect young people with what is happening in our world, focusing primarily on what they have to say and their opinions.
Current from what I saw has traditional and non-traditional stories. The stories to me seem to be more of interest stories versus hard news stories. People can put up stories that interest them while also adding their perspective and viewpoints. The website has a variety of stories that fall under specific headings. Some examples of the headings are: news, music, tech, earth and science, movies etc.
The stories themselves seem to be more biased because again people are posting them based on what they like or dislike. The comments people make on the stories posted have more of a balance though. Some of the comments posted by people argue against the story while others support the main theme of the story.
Current’s Collective Journalism team is the group that hosts the sight. Anyone can submit a pod to be considered by Current’s Collective Journalism Team. If you submit a pod you then can do an assignment on the Current Journalism page and if it gets aired you become part of the team. I couldn’t find one specific person who operates this site though. I assumed that the Current’s Collective Journalism team ran the website. The role of the team is to review what is being posted and provide stories that might spark some attention. Having the Collective Journalism team is a good thing I think because it allows for people to filter the information before it is posted. The team can also check for accuracy and timeliness.
On this website there are a large number of voices. There is not just one section though that shows who blogs. There are a bunch of bloggers who upload stories or pictures. Almost all of the bloggers who post stories provide where they got their information from as well as a link to the source. Having a link to where the information was taken from is helpful if someone else wants to go and find more information about a topic or if they want updates on the topic. Besides the websites and links of where the bloggers got their information from I did not see any experts quoted. I don’t necessarily see this as bad as long as the blogger is providing some type of attribution.
I personally don’t think it is easy for everyday citizens to post on this website. I had a very difficult time navigating the website and figuring out where one would go if they wanted to add a story. People don’t want to feel lost when they are on websites. When people feel confused many times they will find another website that is easier to navigate and never come back to the other website. Even though it was hard to figure out how to post a story, it was easy to comment on one because under each post there was a response button. It was also easy to share a story with someone if one wanted to; all they would have to do is click the share button.
I think you can learn some new things from this website. It is updated constantly and along the right hand side of the website is a list with related stories that were posted previously. The website also does not focus on just one topic. Topics are very broad ranging from politics to music videos making it more attractive to all types of audiences.
Overall, the website could be more organized. There is stuff everywhere making it hard to figure out what you want to look at and where to find a story if you are looking for something in particular. The stories are relevant to what is going on today; I just think the website can make tabs with drop down boxes to make it easy to access something.
The main purpose of Current’s website is to connect young people with what is happening in our world, focusing primarily on what they have to say and their opinions.
Current from what I saw has traditional and non-traditional stories. The stories to me seem to be more of interest stories versus hard news stories. People can put up stories that interest them while also adding their perspective and viewpoints. The website has a variety of stories that fall under specific headings. Some examples of the headings are: news, music, tech, earth and science, movies etc.
The stories themselves seem to be more biased because again people are posting them based on what they like or dislike. The comments people make on the stories posted have more of a balance though. Some of the comments posted by people argue against the story while others support the main theme of the story.
Current’s Collective Journalism team is the group that hosts the sight. Anyone can submit a pod to be considered by Current’s Collective Journalism Team. If you submit a pod you then can do an assignment on the Current Journalism page and if it gets aired you become part of the team. I couldn’t find one specific person who operates this site though. I assumed that the Current’s Collective Journalism team ran the website. The role of the team is to review what is being posted and provide stories that might spark some attention. Having the Collective Journalism team is a good thing I think because it allows for people to filter the information before it is posted. The team can also check for accuracy and timeliness.
On this website there are a large number of voices. There is not just one section though that shows who blogs. There are a bunch of bloggers who upload stories or pictures. Almost all of the bloggers who post stories provide where they got their information from as well as a link to the source. Having a link to where the information was taken from is helpful if someone else wants to go and find more information about a topic or if they want updates on the topic. Besides the websites and links of where the bloggers got their information from I did not see any experts quoted. I don’t necessarily see this as bad as long as the blogger is providing some type of attribution.
I personally don’t think it is easy for everyday citizens to post on this website. I had a very difficult time navigating the website and figuring out where one would go if they wanted to add a story. People don’t want to feel lost when they are on websites. When people feel confused many times they will find another website that is easier to navigate and never come back to the other website. Even though it was hard to figure out how to post a story, it was easy to comment on one because under each post there was a response button. It was also easy to share a story with someone if one wanted to; all they would have to do is click the share button.
I think you can learn some new things from this website. It is updated constantly and along the right hand side of the website is a list with related stories that were posted previously. The website also does not focus on just one topic. Topics are very broad ranging from politics to music videos making it more attractive to all types of audiences.
Overall, the website could be more organized. There is stuff everywhere making it hard to figure out what you want to look at and where to find a story if you are looking for something in particular. The stories are relevant to what is going on today; I just think the website can make tabs with drop down boxes to make it easy to access something.
CJReport: Citizen Journalism
For the critique of a citizen journalism site I chose to look at CJReport. I was pleasantly surprised at what I found when I got to the site. At first glance it could have passed for the website of a major newspaper. The different story categories at the top along with the Top Story and Recent News Stories categories made it really easy to navigate throughout the material on the site and the design mirrored that which could be found on any major newspapers’ web site such as the New York Times or Washington Post.
Although I liked the design of the site something jumped out at me right away that was a little concerning. It didn’t seem to be updated very frequently. Most of the stories listed under the Top Stories and Recent News Stories were around two weeks old. The newest story was hours away from being three days old at the time I first accessed it. Timeliness is really important in the news world. If I go to a site to find news I am going to expect that what I’m reading is new and current. I would also expect that the type of person who is going to seek out a citizen journalism site would be the kind of person who is actively engaged in keeping up with the news in some capacity. If that were the case, why would they go to a site that is only updated every few days? News is constantly happening and chances are the stories that are being covered on CJReport would have already been covered days earlier on another site. It is fine to have stories on the site that are older, I just wouldn’t have expected them to be posted in the sections designated for top and recent news stories.
As I began to dig through the site I found several other things that I liked and disliked. First, I liked how simple it was to contribute to the site. It was even easier to post on there than it is on the blogger software we use for this blog. All you have to do is click the ‘Create a New Story’ button and type away. There were fields provided right on the story form to insert images or video with clear instructions for the types of formats accepted. In terms of access it is fabulous for someone who is just starting out in citizen journalism or someone who only posts something once in a while.
However, as I began to think about this feature I realized the potential implications it could have. By allowing anyone to post anonymously there is the potential for them to post questionable material. There isn’t a name to hold accountable for the information posted and it makes me a little more wary of the content of the site. In my opinion it makes the site more susceptible to authors making up information, sources, or any number of other things. Sometimes factual errors or other problems with a story can happen accidentaly and having contact information for an author helps to open dialogue between them and the reader to improve the quality of the story and make for better reporting. Allowing anonymity compromises that. Ultimately the integrity of the site could be called into question by not requiring some sort of registration.
This issue arose again when I took a look at the ease of commenting. The anonymous feature extends to comments which are enabled on all the posts I looked at. Anyone could get on the site to spam it or do a wide variety of negative things in the comment section. Although commenting can be a great feature to spark discussion, notify an author of information they may have been missing or that was incorrect, etc. it should be used with caution and there doesn’t seem to be any caution taken on this site. Although I didn’t seem to see any abuse of the commenting section, should the site continue to gain in popularity it is something to be wary of.
With some improvements I believe that this site could emerge as a leader in citizen journalism. It has a great base that it is working with right now and changing a few things around would make it even better.
Although I liked the design of the site something jumped out at me right away that was a little concerning. It didn’t seem to be updated very frequently. Most of the stories listed under the Top Stories and Recent News Stories were around two weeks old. The newest story was hours away from being three days old at the time I first accessed it. Timeliness is really important in the news world. If I go to a site to find news I am going to expect that what I’m reading is new and current. I would also expect that the type of person who is going to seek out a citizen journalism site would be the kind of person who is actively engaged in keeping up with the news in some capacity. If that were the case, why would they go to a site that is only updated every few days? News is constantly happening and chances are the stories that are being covered on CJReport would have already been covered days earlier on another site. It is fine to have stories on the site that are older, I just wouldn’t have expected them to be posted in the sections designated for top and recent news stories.
As I began to dig through the site I found several other things that I liked and disliked. First, I liked how simple it was to contribute to the site. It was even easier to post on there than it is on the blogger software we use for this blog. All you have to do is click the ‘Create a New Story’ button and type away. There were fields provided right on the story form to insert images or video with clear instructions for the types of formats accepted. In terms of access it is fabulous for someone who is just starting out in citizen journalism or someone who only posts something once in a while.
However, as I began to think about this feature I realized the potential implications it could have. By allowing anyone to post anonymously there is the potential for them to post questionable material. There isn’t a name to hold accountable for the information posted and it makes me a little more wary of the content of the site. In my opinion it makes the site more susceptible to authors making up information, sources, or any number of other things. Sometimes factual errors or other problems with a story can happen accidentaly and having contact information for an author helps to open dialogue between them and the reader to improve the quality of the story and make for better reporting. Allowing anonymity compromises that. Ultimately the integrity of the site could be called into question by not requiring some sort of registration.
This issue arose again when I took a look at the ease of commenting. The anonymous feature extends to comments which are enabled on all the posts I looked at. Anyone could get on the site to spam it or do a wide variety of negative things in the comment section. Although commenting can be a great feature to spark discussion, notify an author of information they may have been missing or that was incorrect, etc. it should be used with caution and there doesn’t seem to be any caution taken on this site. Although I didn’t seem to see any abuse of the commenting section, should the site continue to gain in popularity it is something to be wary of.
With some improvements I believe that this site could emerge as a leader in citizen journalism. It has a great base that it is working with right now and changing a few things around would make it even better.
"Unedited.Unfiltered.News" iReport critique
This was my first time visiting the iReport website. It was a bit confusing at first to understand where all the material was and how the comments that readers posted worked. But the site does offer a great variety of voices. There are many stories from many different people. Most of the stories that I read were national stories and not local. The stories were also not fair in their coverage. They would only present one side of any story. But, the commenting feature allowed for other readers to post their contradictory opinions and ideas right below the original story. It seems that the host of the site does not fact- check or spell check any of the stories posted. I did have some trouble reading some of the stories simply because of problems with grammar.
The posts I looked at on the site did not have any quotes or sources cited, they did however have some links that provided the reader with more information relating to the story. Some of the stories seem to be hard news facts, but for the most part the stories are more of people’s opinions on news. The fact that they have no sources cited within the story makes it even more apparent when a story is more opinion then actual news. The posts are written in a narrative storytelling style. It seems like you are being told the story, in conversation as oppose to reading a news story.
At the very top of the ICNN site there is a disclaimer that explains that all the content on the site is user-generated. This site makes it very easy for any one to post. The process is straightforward and easy to follow. The ability for anyone who wishes to post can is evident through the content. You can really see the variety in the number of users that post and the number of people that participate with the stories. The reports are interesting, they certainly provide the reader with information but it is very hard for me to trust the information when I know off the bat that the information has not been fact checked. I guess that just puts more responsibility on me, the reader to check other sites and news outlets to make sure that the information I read was in fact correct. I really liked the organization of the content on the site. I really liked that I could just look at many stories in a shortened version and then decide whether I would want to read the entire story. I also like that they tell you which stories have appeared on CNN.
The content on the site is highly accessible to the public. Anyone who types in the website address into their browser can easily read all the content on the site. Something must also be said for the organization and timeliness of the content. All the stories I looked at were relevant to the day. There was also a lot of very up to the minute posts. The readers and visitors of the site are the sole reason why the site continues to work the way that it does. The readers and visitors keep the site running with their comments and posts to the varying stories.
The posts I looked at on the site did not have any quotes or sources cited, they did however have some links that provided the reader with more information relating to the story. Some of the stories seem to be hard news facts, but for the most part the stories are more of people’s opinions on news. The fact that they have no sources cited within the story makes it even more apparent when a story is more opinion then actual news. The posts are written in a narrative storytelling style. It seems like you are being told the story, in conversation as oppose to reading a news story.
At the very top of the ICNN site there is a disclaimer that explains that all the content on the site is user-generated. This site makes it very easy for any one to post. The process is straightforward and easy to follow. The ability for anyone who wishes to post can is evident through the content. You can really see the variety in the number of users that post and the number of people that participate with the stories. The reports are interesting, they certainly provide the reader with information but it is very hard for me to trust the information when I know off the bat that the information has not been fact checked. I guess that just puts more responsibility on me, the reader to check other sites and news outlets to make sure that the information I read was in fact correct. I really liked the organization of the content on the site. I really liked that I could just look at many stories in a shortened version and then decide whether I would want to read the entire story. I also like that they tell you which stories have appeared on CNN.
The content on the site is highly accessible to the public. Anyone who types in the website address into their browser can easily read all the content on the site. Something must also be said for the organization and timeliness of the content. All the stories I looked at were relevant to the day. There was also a lot of very up to the minute posts. The readers and visitors of the site are the sole reason why the site continues to work the way that it does. The readers and visitors keep the site running with their comments and posts to the varying stories.
Citizen Journalism critique
Citizen Journalism, or CJreport is a very easy and accessible tool for those interested in giving their point in the news today. The site provides easy ways to post your news and your opinions with the "Create a news story link" on the left hand corner, which encourages for the visitors of the website to post their true opinions and under an anonymous name. The easy access and the invitation of all who are able to type does call for a variety of voices and interesting point of views.
While CJreport allows amateur journalists to post news stories which could be news that would relate to them locally and personally, I found that most of the news were nationally concerned dealing with international news, celebrity gossip, and political attitudes. A lot of the information was accurate and was centered around a central story which would, in turn, lead up to their final conclusion and assumption.
The news stories I found were all concerning national news, so the relevance of the story could be seen by anyone who visited the site. The stories could draw in plenty of readers because the stories that these novice journalists reported on can connect with all. CJreport, in an attempt to be interactive, also allows for the readers to comment on the opinions of the authors, and also to revise their stories. The participation encouraged by this website is phenomenal because not only do the prospective authors have a place, but also the readers who may have a comment, or may notice a mistake in the writing of the passage.
The organization is messy. In this citizen journalism publication, all of the stories are organized according to date published rather than importance. At the top of the website one can pick the category they would like to read such as World, Business, Technology, or Entertainment, but it is the author who categorizes their article in these places, which could allow a person to publish their post anywhere they want. This could lead to a story like "China deploys 25,000 security personnel" as the leading story in the Sports section. It should be the monitoring host which categorizes the stories, to be sure it is done correctly. Putting this much control in the hands of the public, I believe, is absurd because it makes it difficult to actually find the types of story you are looking for if the author categorizes their story in the wrong places.
You can see the effects of the novice production in this non-traditional series of writings when you notice the impressions and persuasions of the author coming through in the articles. One problem that may arise in the posting of citizen journalists is their failure to post more than their point of view, which in turn could cause their stories to appear biased, or one-sided.
In the article "Barack Obama, I Have a Dream... but NOT of You" the passage posted by an anonymous individual in the Middle East was a call to the attention of the Muslim people that their are more deserving heroes in their culture than Barack Obama. The first half of the article was a constant bash of Obama and how he handled the attacks in the Gaza, when Israeli soldiers "butchered" Palestinians. The second half was dedicated to the Muslim people and how the good guys are condemned terrorists.
While the article was an excellent tool for the author to express himself, there was no opposing opinions in the blog. All of the voices in the article belonged to the author and they all agreed with each other.
So, while CJreporter is an excellent tool or aspiring writers it can be one sided. One should tread carefully on the articles knowing that what they read will be the author's blatant opinions all their own.
While CJreport allows amateur journalists to post news stories which could be news that would relate to them locally and personally, I found that most of the news were nationally concerned dealing with international news, celebrity gossip, and political attitudes. A lot of the information was accurate and was centered around a central story which would, in turn, lead up to their final conclusion and assumption.
The news stories I found were all concerning national news, so the relevance of the story could be seen by anyone who visited the site. The stories could draw in plenty of readers because the stories that these novice journalists reported on can connect with all. CJreport, in an attempt to be interactive, also allows for the readers to comment on the opinions of the authors, and also to revise their stories. The participation encouraged by this website is phenomenal because not only do the prospective authors have a place, but also the readers who may have a comment, or may notice a mistake in the writing of the passage.
The organization is messy. In this citizen journalism publication, all of the stories are organized according to date published rather than importance. At the top of the website one can pick the category they would like to read such as World, Business, Technology, or Entertainment, but it is the author who categorizes their article in these places, which could allow a person to publish their post anywhere they want. This could lead to a story like "China deploys 25,000 security personnel" as the leading story in the Sports section. It should be the monitoring host which categorizes the stories, to be sure it is done correctly. Putting this much control in the hands of the public, I believe, is absurd because it makes it difficult to actually find the types of story you are looking for if the author categorizes their story in the wrong places.
You can see the effects of the novice production in this non-traditional series of writings when you notice the impressions and persuasions of the author coming through in the articles. One problem that may arise in the posting of citizen journalists is their failure to post more than their point of view, which in turn could cause their stories to appear biased, or one-sided.
In the article "Barack Obama, I Have a Dream... but NOT of You" the passage posted by an anonymous individual in the Middle East was a call to the attention of the Muslim people that their are more deserving heroes in their culture than Barack Obama. The first half of the article was a constant bash of Obama and how he handled the attacks in the Gaza, when Israeli soldiers "butchered" Palestinians. The second half was dedicated to the Muslim people and how the good guys are condemned terrorists.
While the article was an excellent tool for the author to express himself, there was no opposing opinions in the blog. All of the voices in the article belonged to the author and they all agreed with each other.
So, while CJreporter is an excellent tool or aspiring writers it can be one sided. One should tread carefully on the articles knowing that what they read will be the author's blatant opinions all their own.
Monday, February 23, 2009
True Citizen Journalism
Out of all of the citizen journalism links, the CNN iReport was the most intriguing—mainly because I’ve heard many positive things about it and CNN is one of the rare news sources I turn to when I want to be informed about issues concerning the world. For this reason, I then visited the iReport website and the first thing I saw were pictures that acted as links to different stories. I thought this was a clever way to draw people into the site because I think it’s more interesting this way with pictures instead of a list of different stories. I think it sparks curiosity and makes people want to know more; as it did with me.
The second thing I noticed about the site is the banner at the top of the page that explains the site. It emphasizes the fact that the site is open to written stories from anyone and they are not edited or altered. Below, there is link that allows users to upload their own stories, pictures or videos. I liked this aspect of the website because it makes it clear that the website does what a real citizen journalism blog is supposed to do—provide a place for everyday people to have a voice and write about stories they feel are newsworthy.
When I looked at the individual stories, the subject matter ranged from politics to posts about the Academy Awards. This signaled to me that website welcomes a diverse group of users that are passionate about different things. There was also a range of writing styles with the stories. There are some stories that are written with more of journalistic voice—for example, most of the stories concerning Obama’s agenda, the economy and events/issues that pertained to a certain region of the country. But, then there were stories that more casually written and sounded more like opinion pieces. Most of the stories included this style and some examples were stories about animal cruelty, the affects of the recession and pop culture/entertainment.
Some issues are that some of the accuracy of some of the information that is addressed in the stories cannot be checked with all the stories. I only saw a few stories that included links to the places where they received their information from. Unless you are expressing your opinion, I think it is necessary for users to include links to where they are hearing or reading information from. This reassures that the information is credible and not something someone is making up. Also, there were some spelling and grammatical errors with some of the stories. However, this is something that is expected because the website does not modify the stories.
While, some stories are written like articles, I don’t know if I would consider this website informative. I don’t think it is somewhere you should turn to as a source of world news. Instead, I think it is a place where people can be free to discuss the issues they feel are important that may not be found on news sites or news shows on television. This websites gives the people the opportunity to sound-off about whatever they please. The site is informative in the sense that you can read about an array of topics and subjects that you may not read on a news site. But, because many of the stories have are opinion-based, the “news” is being reported differently—you’re going to get it from a particular perspective instead of strictly-factual details that you find in unbiased standard news stories; therefore, certain things may be left out and you aren’t getting the entire story. You will get some level of news and understanding of what is going on in the world. But, it won’t be the same as reading about news from a standard news site because you’ll only be reading about the details that the author chooses to included, contrary to the way standard news stories are written, which is to include all aspects of the story.
With all of that said, I don’t think that this is necessarily a negative aspect. iReport stresses that it is controlled by users and the issues they want to talk about. After all, that’s what makes it different from standard news sites. There will be bias and voice. The purpose of the site is to not only inform; but to provide people with a place to express their thoughts and have control over what is being reported and said.
The second thing I noticed about the site is the banner at the top of the page that explains the site. It emphasizes the fact that the site is open to written stories from anyone and they are not edited or altered. Below, there is link that allows users to upload their own stories, pictures or videos. I liked this aspect of the website because it makes it clear that the website does what a real citizen journalism blog is supposed to do—provide a place for everyday people to have a voice and write about stories they feel are newsworthy.
When I looked at the individual stories, the subject matter ranged from politics to posts about the Academy Awards. This signaled to me that website welcomes a diverse group of users that are passionate about different things. There was also a range of writing styles with the stories. There are some stories that are written with more of journalistic voice—for example, most of the stories concerning Obama’s agenda, the economy and events/issues that pertained to a certain region of the country. But, then there were stories that more casually written and sounded more like opinion pieces. Most of the stories included this style and some examples were stories about animal cruelty, the affects of the recession and pop culture/entertainment.
Some issues are that some of the accuracy of some of the information that is addressed in the stories cannot be checked with all the stories. I only saw a few stories that included links to the places where they received their information from. Unless you are expressing your opinion, I think it is necessary for users to include links to where they are hearing or reading information from. This reassures that the information is credible and not something someone is making up. Also, there were some spelling and grammatical errors with some of the stories. However, this is something that is expected because the website does not modify the stories.
While, some stories are written like articles, I don’t know if I would consider this website informative. I don’t think it is somewhere you should turn to as a source of world news. Instead, I think it is a place where people can be free to discuss the issues they feel are important that may not be found on news sites or news shows on television. This websites gives the people the opportunity to sound-off about whatever they please. The site is informative in the sense that you can read about an array of topics and subjects that you may not read on a news site. But, because many of the stories have are opinion-based, the “news” is being reported differently—you’re going to get it from a particular perspective instead of strictly-factual details that you find in unbiased standard news stories; therefore, certain things may be left out and you aren’t getting the entire story. You will get some level of news and understanding of what is going on in the world. But, it won’t be the same as reading about news from a standard news site because you’ll only be reading about the details that the author chooses to included, contrary to the way standard news stories are written, which is to include all aspects of the story.
With all of that said, I don’t think that this is necessarily a negative aspect. iReport stresses that it is controlled by users and the issues they want to talk about. After all, that’s what makes it different from standard news sites. There will be bias and voice. The purpose of the site is to not only inform; but to provide people with a place to express their thoughts and have control over what is being reported and said.
Citizen Journalism: An Opportunity for Amateurs
When I opened the citizen journal report, the first thing I saw was the tagline: giving citizen journalists a voice. It was simple, easily accessible, and plainly laid out. It says that all news is contributed by citizens, and it encourages new participants to contribute as well. If you click on Community, it lists the top journalists which is nice because they may have the most interesting or popular articles. Under the search bar, there was clearly visible link that said Create New Story at which point a very easy form appears where you can type your story and add videos and images. “Top Stories” were near the top of the page, followed “Recent News Stories.” There was also a place on the side that listed upcoming news stories.
I chose to look at one in particular titled Nazi Doctor Death ‘died in 1992.’ This article initially sounded interesting but I could immediately tell that it was written by an amateur. The title first of all, although it sounded interesting, is somewhat confusing and I think it could have been worded better. Also, the author’s tagline seems to be a sentence fragment, and not a complete sentence. I feel as if I did not get the full story from the article, and that the author could have researched and written more. In the title ‘died’ is in quotations, hinting that he may still be alive, but this is never actually cleared up. The author had sources and used quotes from valid contributors but it did not seem very well organized. There were also several grammar and spelling mistakes such as “emotionalise,” which was inside a quote said by someone else. The article is not wrapped up very nicely or conclusively, the author states two facts about Heim, the doctor in question, and then the article ends. I understand that this was written by a regular citizen like myself, however, I think if you are going to post a story, it should researched to its fullest extent. This is a story that I feel you would not regularly see on someplace like CNN so I enjoy that aspect of it, but it left me wanting to know more. I briefly looked at some other articles and many were interesting but were clearly immaturely written but I was glad to see the topics were widely ranged. I saw several mistakes with many of the articles that I looked on the website, which I suppose is to be expected.
There is a place for posting comments right underneath the article, and no type of account is required, but it does ask for your e-mail, which will be kept private. You are also able to preview your comment before posting it, which is a nice feature because it gives you more of chance to catch your own spelling mistakes. The articles could also be voted on and ranked which may be helpful for people trying to decide whether or not to read them. Participation levels did not actually appear to be very high, the most recent articles were from two weeks ago and then six weeks ago. There were quite a few articles but it did not appear that people were posting regularly. There were a surprising variety of topics of articles. A majority of them were political but I was glad to see many other issues also being addressed. The website also allows you to take a tour of it and it gives you a table of contents so you can pick what you would like to learn about. Overall, I think the website is very nicely laid out but I think that the authors should have more of a type of editing system. It is laid out in a way, that will not be confused trying to navigate it and there are categories for articles so it is easy to choose. I was happy to see eye-catching titles and various topics outside the realm of normal news, but as with most things, it could use some improvements. I think that citizen journalism is a wonderful opportunity for just about anyone to report on something that they may feel is important. It also allows a much more personal vantage point and many nontraditional stories with nontraditional views.
I chose to look at one in particular titled Nazi Doctor Death ‘died in 1992.’ This article initially sounded interesting but I could immediately tell that it was written by an amateur. The title first of all, although it sounded interesting, is somewhat confusing and I think it could have been worded better. Also, the author’s tagline seems to be a sentence fragment, and not a complete sentence. I feel as if I did not get the full story from the article, and that the author could have researched and written more. In the title ‘died’ is in quotations, hinting that he may still be alive, but this is never actually cleared up. The author had sources and used quotes from valid contributors but it did not seem very well organized. There were also several grammar and spelling mistakes such as “emotionalise,” which was inside a quote said by someone else. The article is not wrapped up very nicely or conclusively, the author states two facts about Heim, the doctor in question, and then the article ends. I understand that this was written by a regular citizen like myself, however, I think if you are going to post a story, it should researched to its fullest extent. This is a story that I feel you would not regularly see on someplace like CNN so I enjoy that aspect of it, but it left me wanting to know more. I briefly looked at some other articles and many were interesting but were clearly immaturely written but I was glad to see the topics were widely ranged. I saw several mistakes with many of the articles that I looked on the website, which I suppose is to be expected.
There is a place for posting comments right underneath the article, and no type of account is required, but it does ask for your e-mail, which will be kept private. You are also able to preview your comment before posting it, which is a nice feature because it gives you more of chance to catch your own spelling mistakes. The articles could also be voted on and ranked which may be helpful for people trying to decide whether or not to read them. Participation levels did not actually appear to be very high, the most recent articles were from two weeks ago and then six weeks ago. There were quite a few articles but it did not appear that people were posting regularly. There were a surprising variety of topics of articles. A majority of them were political but I was glad to see many other issues also being addressed. The website also allows you to take a tour of it and it gives you a table of contents so you can pick what you would like to learn about. Overall, I think the website is very nicely laid out but I think that the authors should have more of a type of editing system. It is laid out in a way, that will not be confused trying to navigate it and there are categories for articles so it is easy to choose. I was happy to see eye-catching titles and various topics outside the realm of normal news, but as with most things, it could use some improvements. I think that citizen journalism is a wonderful opportunity for just about anyone to report on something that they may feel is important. It also allows a much more personal vantage point and many nontraditional stories with nontraditional views.
The CJReport: Up Close and Personal
I usually do not go onto Citizen Journalism sites unless it is CNN, so I decided to check out other sites. I found CJReport to be a very interesting site. When browsing through the site, it reminded me a lot of CNN website because it seems very “newsy”. It almost seemed like I was reading a newspaper. The top story is what caught my attention the most. I thought that title of the story, “McCain tries to ‘kill’ US only clause” makes it seem like a nontraditional story. The author has a very creative way of making the headlines very catchy. After clicking on the headline and reading the article, I felt like the site did a good enough job of keeping the attention of the reader, but making sure to give enough information to make sure the story was given thoroughly. It seems to do this with all of the articles, the host makes sure that the articles are not too long, but still accurate with providing enough information.
The CJReport seems to be very informative, not only does it give the reader the top stories, but it keeps the recent stories on the site as well. This website seems to be a worldwide site; therefore local news is actually worldwide. On this site I can find out that the UN Chief is about the set and launch Bhutto commission or find out about the problems NASA is having with the delay of their shuttle. I would say that this site has a wide range of information to keep the reader informed about a variety of different news information. I find this very beneficial as a reader. It is nice to be able to get on one site and find out enough information about what is going on in the world without searching all over the web. This is one of the main reasons why I tend to look at the CNN website daily.
As in terms of telling the story of each article, I feel that the host is pretty fair with how he or she tells the story to the audience. For an example the author of the Obama article tells the story as if it was a narrative. The author explains the facts of the article and tries to keep it as accurate as possible.
Overall I feel as though the website relates to the audience as well as the author. The author and the reader are obviously going on this site to find out news, not just from the local area, but worldwide. As for a novice standpoint, I feel as though this website is very far advanced, with nice photos and videos on display. This website fits together very well and gets the audience involved too. There is an easy access to ask questions to the site or leave your comments. There is no need not to feel like you cannot comment on what the author has to say. The CJReport is very interactive and has a lot of different links to choose from so that you can fill your mind with information from all different grounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)