Difference between Traditional journalism and Citizen Journalism

Traditional journalism is the broadcasting of news through mediums like the newspaper, radio or the television. Traditional journalists have to follow ethics and ensure that research done is accurate and first hand. Careful and conscientious verification of sources also have to be done to ensure there’s fairness in the news broadcast. Through quality control and editorial process, it establishes a credibility of news among readers.

In this new age, everyone wants their part to play in the journalism industry. You don’t need much to actually be or call yourself a ‘citizen journalist.’ No camera man? No sound crew? No editor? NO FRET! All you need is your hand phone camera, a computer and an internet connection. And with word press, blogger, YouTube, YOU GOT THE POWER to publish YOUR news to a worldwide audience out there. Citizen Journalism basically allows you, me and basically anyone who wants to share a certain piece of news or views to the world. Non non-professionals like us get to play an active role in sharing the news. User comments in blogs and YouTube allow readers to participate in sharing their views.

How did Citizen Journalism started?

Readers these days want to enjoy the freedom of choice. And with the wide usage of the internet worldwide, readers are able to hear, watch or read about news that happen in ANY PART of the world ANYTIME through citizen journalism. Although news channels like CNN, FOX news, CNA provides 24 hour news coverage. But they could not broadcast news that was happening anywhere around the world. INTERNET DOES!

Companies who want to advertise their products prefer to go through a much hassle free and inexpensive medium like YouTube or even blogs. The internet is always a better option rather than the traditional media.

Here are some sites that gives you a greater insight of the world of citizen journalism.

–http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2007/08/traditional-journalism-job-cuts-countered-by-digital-additions235.html

–http://principledprofit.com/good-business-blog/with-attitudes-like-these-no-wonder-traditional-journalism-is-dying/2008/12/09/

-http://singaporemedia.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-next-for-citizen-journalism.html

-http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/09/your-guide-to-citizen-journalism270.html

And here you can read more about the 11 layers of Citizen journalism. Pretty useful if you want to be a citizen journalist yourself.

Citizen journalism too much freedom of speech?

Discussion forums, blogs, vodcasts, podcasts have flourished as its one of the most popular form of digital communication via the internet. Users have to ability to share their views or opinions to a global audience with just one click of the mouse. As citizen journalism does not require a panel of editors to filter the undesirable contents, users are able to say basically anything they want. However there are moderators who remove all these undesirable contents and blacklist users whom misused their freedom of speech. One good example would be the video sharing site, YouTube where they remove videos containing unpleasant and distasteful content or violating their terms of use.

Even blogging sites like blogger.com, wordpress.com, livejournal.com and xanga.com made it compulsory for viewers or users to sign up with an account before they are allowed to post an entry. This disallows anonymity on the cyberspace which is another issue the caused much debates.

Sites like STOMP have allowed public ‘reporters’ to reveal many undesirable habits and acts in the open public for example, the ACJC girl’s ‘birthday bash’. STOMP allows registered users to upload videos or photos of culprits, which then brought about opposition from the public as they claimed that this action has violated their privacy rights. However faces in the videos and photos were censored to protect the identity of the culprit. The uploading of these photos and videos serves as a reminder to the public to maintain a good conduct.

The internet was a channel for family of victims during the 9/11 tragedy to outpour their grief. It also allowed the public to offer their condolences. Patriotisms and political debates were also held on the internet. Freedom of speech in this case had allowed many people to vent their frustrations rather than physical rebellion which will cause more social problems.

I believe that internet users, reporters and readers sub-consciously understand that even the freedom of speech has certain boundaries that cannot be crossed. And they are fully aware of the consequences they face if they commit impulsive acts on the internet. Besides, moderators and gatekeepers will always be on the lookout for users breaching their rights in the freedom of speech.