Negotiating the Good and Bad of Social Media News Reporting
NEWS REPORTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE
In an era that has seen social media become deeply engrained in our everyday lives, it is no surprise that online platforms are used as a valuable tool to stay informed.
Described as “the act of [citizens] playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing and disseminating news and information”(Bowman & Willis 2003), citizen journalism has flourished in the digital age.
The participatory nature of the internet has meant that anyone with a decent wifi connection has the opportunity to easily access and share information online. In contrast to mainstream media, this information is highly unregulated, enabling ordinary people to report on newsworthy situations that are not (or could not be) covered by traditional media.
This raises the important question: is online citizen journalism for the good or bad? Does it function with the intent of exposing situations that are under-represented in mainstream media, or does obscure the truth and facilitate the spread of misinformation?
NEGOTIATING CITIZEN JOURNALISM – IS IT GOOD OR BAD?
As the new common-ground for information, people are increasingly more inclined to access news via social media, rather than traditional media sources (such as television, newspapers and radio). Unsurprisingly, there is great appeal in the idea of having access to unvarnished truths shared person-to-person. As a result, online citizen journalism has generated a shift away from controlled media sources, towards an environment where information is reported first-hand, uncensored and unfiltered.
There are a number of significant benefits to citizen journalism.
Citizen journalism has the potential to raise issues and shed light on situations that are not or can not be discussed within mainstream media. It allows audiences to access important, unfiltered information that would otherwise go under the radar or withheld from them. For example, in repressive countries, citizen journalism offers a unique insight to current events at both a local and global scale, pushing outside the boundaries of the highly censored traditional media environment.
However, citizen journalism also has its major pitfalls.
The same principles that drive the benefits of citizen journalism, also perpetuate its dangers. The lack of a verification system (which is the essence of professional journalism) and the unregulated nature of social media sharing expedites the spread of misinformation online.
There are concerns surrounding the fact that “technologies useful for reporting a peacemaking are also useful for rumour mongering and incitement to violence” (Zuckerman 2008). Meaning that, although citizen journalism has the potential for good, it is very important to consider its disadvantages in order to avoid serious consequences.
We can further investigate this idea by analysing the effect of citizen journalism during the Kenyan presidential election crisis.
CITIZEN JOURNALISM IN KENYA – THE 2007 KENYAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CRISIS
In December 2007, former Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki was re-elected to his position, despite opposition leader Raila Odinga claiming victory of the polls. In response, Odinga contested the results and accused the Electorate Commission of fraud. For the next two months following the election, violent protests and targeted ethnic violence erupted throughout the country, resulting in the deaths of over 1000 people .
In the immediate aftermath of the election, Government security announced the ban of live broadcast, as traditional media outlets were accused of “being responsible for fuelling ethnic hatred and violence” (Abdi Ismail & Deane 2008).
Because of this media blackout, Kenyans resorted to using the internet to stay informed on the crisis occurring. As a tool, citizen journalists used various social media platforms to share information, safety warnings (including maps to alert where violence was occurring) raise funds, and promote peace. On the other hand, social media also became an outlet for misinformation, prejudice, and instigating violence.
In short, I believe the key to understanding whether citizen journalism is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is acknowledging the co-existence of its benefits and pitfalls, and taking both into consideration when using it as a tool for accessing information.
“Traditional journalism is the outside looking in. Citizen journalism is the inside looking out. In order to get the complete story, it helps to have both points of view.”
Alison Hill 2022
REFERENCE LIST:
- Meikle, G & Young, S 2011. ‘From Broadcast to Social Media.’ in Media Convergence: Networked Digital Media in Everyday Life, pp. 59-78.
- Abdi Ismail, J & Deane, J 2008, The Kenyan 2007 Elections and their Aftermath: The Role of Media and Communication, GSDRC, viewed 2 February 2022, <https://gsdrc.org/document-library/the-kenyan-2007-elections-and-their-aftermath-the-role-of-media-and-communication/>.
- Bowman, S & Willis, C 2003, We Media How audiences are shaping the future of news and information, July.
- Hill, A 2022, Citizen Journalism vs. Traditional Journalism, Writer’s Digest.
- Jurrat, N 2011, CITIZEN JOURNALISM AND THE INTERNET MAPPING DIGITAL MEDIA: REFERENCE SERIES NO. 4.
- Zuckerman, E 2008, Kenya: Citizen Media in a time of crisis, Ethan Zuckerman, viewed 24 August 2022, <http://ethanz.wpengine.com/2008/06/20/kenya-citizen-media-in-a-time-of-crisis/>.