The Press gazette has a pretty damning piece on the We media conference at the Beeb a week or so ago. According to Martin Stabe , there wasnt much ‘we’ in evidence which is no suprise really.
I particularly like Helen Boaden “who fact-checks the bloggers?” which strikes me as a bit rich and illustrates the ‘do as I say and not as I do” attitude of the traditional media so well.
But a quote apropos the last few posts…
Perhaps the only thing everyone could agree on last week was that ‘citizen journalism’ is an unsatisfactory label for developments as diverse as cameraphone snaps sent to broadcasters, blogging and ‘hyperlocal’ community news websites.
Richard Sambrook, the BBC’s director of global news, described trying to frame participatory media in terms of traditional journalism as a self-defeating exercise.
“I don’t think we’re ever going to arrive at settled or agreed definitions. I personally don’t like the term ‘citizen journalism’ because I don’t think most people who are either providing material to big media or writing blogs think of themselves only as journalists,” he said.
Indeed, nobody likes the term ‘citizen journalism’. Some find the very notion that non-professionals could be labelled ‘journalists’ offensive and favour ‘witness contributors’. Others consider ‘citizen’ a redundant modifier in the age of a participating audience where everyone is a journalist. And aren’t all journalists, well, citizens?
You would think so wouldnt you.