[Fwd: Re: Sandra Ordonez sent you a message on Facebook...]

[Brian McNeil-2]

For background to those not in the know, Sandy used to be the Wikimedia
Foundation press handler. Jay Walsh has the job she used to do, and some
of the 'tectonic shifts' around the time the office was moved to
San-Francisco saw her part ways with them.

She's still active online in a journalism related role, and approached
me for an interview based on interest in Wikinews/Citizen journalism.
The attached is my response which she'll likely publish. I want an
unedited version available to people who might care, so here it is.

Jason and Mike H. should perhaps pay particular attention to how I've
framed my responses. You will recognise my oblique references to you and
the work you do on Wikinews.


--
Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@...>
Wikinewsie.org

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 15:55 -0700, Facebook wrote:
> Sandra sent you a message.
>
> --------------------
> Subject: hey
>
> Sorry this took so long. here are your interview questions. Would love it if you were able to send me a pic as well. again, this will
> be posted here: http://www.facebook.com/l/0c879;www.ourblook.com

I don't have a remotely good picture to give you, how's about the
attached as an apropos? ;-)

> You are a pioneer in citizen journalism, having contributed to Wikinews (Wikipedia's sister project) for quite some time now. Can you
> tell us how you got involved and what you enjoy about the project?

I have to admit up-front to being a committed geek; yes, from childhood.

I took toys to bits to see how they worked, spent hours with Lego and
constructor sets, read every single book I could get my hands on, and
even figured out how to get the local library to *buy* a US$100 book for
me to borrow explaining how to construct high-powered lasers. Frankly,
thank God I did that 30 years ago. The insatiable appetite for knowledge
I had then - combined with finding 'The Anarchist's Cookbook' on the
Internet - would, today, see me locked up or earning myself a Darwin
Award before the age of twelve. I may not be your typical citizen
journalist, but there seems to be a degree of inevitability to getting
involved in it.

In any case, I had access to the Internet for a long time before I
encountered any wiki. And, of course, I first found Wikipedia - late to
the game. On Wikipedia you might know a subject that is not well
covered, or be prepared to carry out extensive research. Where I was
interested in contributing was well-covered by people whose names I
recognised as experts in their fields - who better to write the entry on
the OpenVMS operating system than Stephen Hoffman? (Who'd worked on the
thing for something like 20+ years). I could not see me finding an
uncovered area and doing enough research to create a high-quality
article, something would really have to interest me to do that sort of
work. Wikipedia? I admire the people that do it justice, but I don't
have that much confidence in myself.

I ran across Wikinews around the time of the Boxing Day Tsunami
[http://enwn.net/CAd5], and opened an account. It was a month or two
before I wrote my first article, but I got great positive comments,
enough to make me persist. There was an instant feedback seeing my work
on the project's front page, and less of the near-painful academic
rigour that I believe Wikipedia deserves approached with.

One of the things writing on Wikinews has done is make me an extremely
critical news consumer. Who is paying to present the facts to me in this
way? How do they benefit from doing such? For that I love Ian Hislop's
Private Eye; there is that healthy cynicism, and you are fully aware of
the conclusions you are being led to. Equally so if I, as a citizen
journalist, tell you I threw eggs at Margaret Thatcher during the late
80's, that does not stop you judging how I attempt to report
professionally; it's just highlighting an incident that colours my
perspective on the world. For all Wikimedia projects their neutrality
concept is a near-unobtainable idealistic goal; Wikinews strives for
that, doing so is an educational experience for every contributor.

I can't say all other Wikinewsies come away with the same insight into
news sources they've grown up with, and a similar healthy degree of
scepticism about them. But, the whole sense of satisfaction to me is
practising journalism as a 'craft' and encouraging others to do so. You
learn the more you practice, just like learning to play a musical
instrument. You encounter some incredibly enthusiastic people and there
is great satisfaction in getting them to look critically at their
world-view and improve how they present stories. If you engage in
citizen journalism, and don't become more critical, you're doing it
wrong. If you start by thinking Fox News is "Fair and Balanced", don't
bother; just get another bag of Cheetos from the convenience store and,
in Frank Zappa's words, soak up "the garbage that they feed you".

> Some experts argue that citizen journalism could save newspapers. Do you agree, and if so how?

For the most part, citizen journalism does not have the resources to
save newspapers, unless their content stands up to critical analysis.
Citizen journalism - potentially - has the power to kill worthless
newspapers; if you report nonsense that does not stand up to scrutiny
then you can expect to be called on it. I think
'RatherGate' [http://enwn.net/6FEc] proved that fairly effectively.

How newspapers or other mainstream media sources could be as-they-are
saved by citizen journalists is a whole other ball of wax. I have
absolutely no idea how that could work out in the long run, but it
certainly isn't what seems prevalent at the moment - recruiting the most
ill-informed and highly opinionated 'citizen journalists' on the basis
of how many page views they might add to your website.

> What makes a good citizen journalist?

Oh, I'm a terrible person to ask this question. My answer would be
'ingrained cynicism', and an itch to - in Bob Woodward style - "Follow
the money".

Every citizen journalist would likely answer this question differently,
and while I might find celebrity news shallow and of no interest to me,
I've seen a fellow Wikinewsie put enough effort into such to end up
employed to do it full-time.

> What are some obstacles do you think citizen journalist face, and what are some possible solutions.

Citizen journalists face pretty much the same problems as anyone else
reporting the news. That is, how do you work such that your audience
finds your writing credible? And, for your own sense of self-respect,
how can you be viewed as credible without resorting to cheap talk-show
tactics?

But, if you're going to do any subject justice there has to be a
tangible reward. Well, in any case, there has to be *some* sort of
reward. If you are not making money every time someone views your
reportage or analysis, then why work so hard to produce it? Who and
where you publish with may restrict you, but ground-up support for your
analysis methods and commentary can make you a key player. It's a long
game. Most citizen journalists would love a chance to make money from
their endeavours; right now they have to settle for peer respect, or
sell out and do paid-for product reporting.

If you can work within that, and the editorial restrictions of the site
or newspaper your work is published in, then there are - realistically -
no obstacles. If you can't do so as part of a community you have a much
steeper mountain to climb before a noticeable number of people read
anything you write. I used to play around on some of the techie websites
that were early "Web 2.0", and you build a reputation with the audience
through being articulate, reasoned, informative, and enjoyable to read.
(For an example of that, Slashdot's [http://www.slashdot.org] "New York
County Lawyer" shows how a seemingly unrelated area of expertise can
make your commentary credible).

Citizen journalism can never win through telling people what to think,
it's showing them *how* to think, and being able to justify the position
you hold when challenged on it.

> What advice would you give newspapers who are trying to recruit more high quality citizen journalists their sites?

I have to say I do not think I am qualified to answer this question - if
anyone actually is. The bare-faced cheeky answer is, "Employ me!"

Newspapers break down into so many sub-categories, cover wildly varying
geographic regions, and collectively have a smorgasbord of editorial
positions. For every newspaper that exists today there would be
different criteria in selecting the citizen journalists they should
recruit. Regardless of the newspaper, I think one of the most important
things they should consider is nurturing talent. Are you a local
newspaper? 90%+ of your income from print adverts targeted at people in
the area? Then you should be looking for the local citizen journalists
who sit next to their police scanner and report on the drug busts and
local fires. Assume you will have to invest in improving their writing
skills, be relaxed about them publishing elsewhere, and pay them enough
money to make it worth their while to give you first option on material.
If they could afford to, they would be on the scene at these fires and
such; Wikinews has a few contributors who put that much dedication into
tracking local events. If these people are getting to the scene by
bicycle before your paid reporters, you're perhaps paying the wrong
people.

In any case, citizen journalists such as myself have not spent four
years at college studying the subject. This has not, nor ever should, be
a requirement for entering the trade. There are still serious faults in
my writing style, and I *need* as many examples as possible of where I
go wrong and how to correctly express something. So, like anyone who
takes citizen journalism seriously, the lack of an experienced and
critical editor is where I see a need for the mainstream to get
involved.

> Is there anything you would like to add?

I looked at the recent interviews your site has carried on this topic.
The one that immediately jumped to my attention was with the Christian
Science Monitor. I cannot remember ever reading anything they have
published that is biased/bigoted/uninformed; so, if there is anything I
think is important to add, it is that sources such as the CSM and
citizen journalists need to bang heads and work out some way to make
sure quality journalistic work continues to be produced and widely
publicised. Call me an intellectual snob if you like, but it's the Red
Tops of Rupert Murdoch and their ilk that need to die - I would love to
see heavyweight publications working with citizen journalists towards
such an end. Online anarchy can throw up some real oddities
(http://b3ta.com/board/9710934) would your publication carry this
particularly scathing satirical commentary? Letters to the editor are so
last-century, and some of the people whose comment you should carry call
themselves "/b/tards".

The Internet is the modern-day battleground, and it's full-on memetic
warfare. Ignore it at your peril. And, if you do, expect to end up
discredited like Dan Rather. Citizen journalists are upping their game,
so up yours.


Brian McNeil
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil




_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l