UGC: It can't be a case of something for nothing

Image via Wikipedia

Reading Maria Purdy Young's take on UGC (Citizen Journalism: Something for Nothing Won't Last Long) I remembered Bild's 2008 announcement that it planned to pebbledash basic digital cameras around its potential audience, to try and boost the paper's photographic network. 

According to Bild's picture editor, the newspaper now receives something like 4,000 photographs a day, and the service has led to nearly 1,000 lead stories. (More here, courtesy of Google Translate). 

The mind boggles as to how Bild process all that content pouring in, or whether they respond to everyone who makes a submission (I doubt it's possible)  but it really is the whole River of UGC idea that the regional press has been so intrigued by in recent years.

Bild is, of course, huge - 2.2m copies a day - with a vast audience and the amount of photos, tips and more it receives are correspondingly vast. 

But I remember thinking. at the time Bild and Lidl announced their plans, how wonderful it would be if only the Liverpool Daily Post could give free or peppercorn cost Flip cameras to people. 

Because, as Maria Purdy Young says, something for nothing won't last. In fact, something for nothing shouldn't last.

There should be an exchange - it doesn't mean a financial one but an acknowledgement that both sides are benefiting in some way. Flickr groups are a case in point; when David Higgerson and I worked in Liverpool we had to learn the nuances of running a group where some images were printed, free, in the newspaper.

Ultimately, it worked - the Flickr group members and the Post&Echo worked out a exchange/balance - but if we hadn't, I think the groups wouldn't be the effective, healthy communities they are today. 

There's a quote in the Purdy Young article: “CNN has been relatively forward-thinking in its approach to citizen journalism,” he said. “They mix iReport content (from unpaid citizen journalists) right in with the professional CNN content. But it’s not so simple as you hand a camera to someone and then you fire a journalist.” (it's attributed to someone named only as Myers, who isn't referenced elsewhere in the piece).

No doubt having your video in amongst the 'pro' news video will satisfy some contributors whereas others will feel short-changed. Either way, I doubt CNN worries about its UGC exchange balance too much - they aren't going to be dependent on the same contributors all the time. It's like the regional news organisations view of the nationals: They come in, trample over everything and leave, whereas we have to live with the consequences of our actions.

But for local papers, getting the balance right is crucial, and it will involve investment - cash, time, knowledge-sharing are just some of the things we will have to be prepared to exchange. 

Frankly, I think there could be a steep learning curve on this one.

 

Citizen journalism? Pro-am journalism? Enough with the name calling

So, this whole 'what can we call citizen journalism' thing is starting to annoy me in the same way the whole 'journalist or blogger' debate makes friends of mine start breathing into brown paper bags.

I spotted a tweet from Heather Brooke, attending a conference somewhere, about something (yes, I checked and no, I couldn't find out what it was but my last post was griping about What Is This Hashtag For so I'll move on):

So 'pro-am' journalism seems to be the rebranded jargon for citizen journalism which is, at root, what used to be 'journalism'. #pdf11.less than a minute ago via Echofon Favorite Retweet ReplyHeather Brooke
newsbrooke

Anyway, I didn't really know what that meant so I had a quick Twitter search. And it turns out there's a whole tranche of people pro-am-ing away... here are a few:

For participation in pro-am journo people need to see & *feel* how they can jump in! Via @jayrosen_nyu #pdf11 #tummelless than a minute ago via Twitter for iPhone Favorite Retweet Replydebs
debs

and

I feel a response brewing to @jayrosen_nyu excellent #pdf11 talk on pro-am journalism and it may have a #Mets angleless than a minute ago via Twitter for Android Favorite Retweet ReplyTom Watson
tomwatson

Turned out pro-am - at least in the context of this conference - was a Jay Rosen term and given that he is an influential voice in the world of journalism (someone I read and follow on Twitter, for a start) I guess I'll be hearing the phrase a lot more. But, frankly, I'm sick of determinations.

People do journalism all the time; some of them are paid to do it and they are called Journalists; others aren't and they are called... well, all sorts of things.
If they are reporting on something and consider they are doing journalism, why can't they be called journalists? What distinguishes them from someone else? If you're paid to do it you may call yourself a professional journalist but - to stretch the analogy - a musician is a musician is a musician. Telling the world you're a professional looks a little desperate.
Also, I've worked with a couple of people who had actual qualifications and a salary, whom - in my view - shouldn't have considered themselves as journalists.

If one person is telling about something that happened, and that person is spreading it to a wider world, then one is the eye-witness, the other the reporter. If one person is asking questions about any variety of topics, and sharing the answers with a wider world, they can call themselves a journalist as far as I'm concerned. The Nomenclature Police are hardly likely to care either.

If I want someone to design me a new wing for Chateau Gow I may go to an architect or I might just get a clever friend, someone au fait with design software, to rustle me up something. Is that citizen planning? Have we entered the realm of pro-am architect-design?

Related articles

• Twitter hashtags; lots of curation but where's the context? (alisongow.com)
• #newsrw - Heather Brooke on the UK's culture of secrecy (onemanandhisblog.com)
• "Just blog it!" Can anyone be a citizen journalist? (2) (ibcomcti.wordpress.com)
• GroundReport: Citizen journalism gets richer (socialmedia.biz)

Yet another 'why journalists should use Twitter' post

Twitter, is an integral part of my job as a journalist. So it was something of a surprise to learn this week there are still some journalism colleges that don't show its potential benefits to their students.

I was talking to some J-students this week about how newspapers and journalists can use Twitter when one of them told me it wasn't on the syllabus she was studying, as it was perceived to have no value.

"Why?"I asked her."And who else on your course is using it?" Turned out, she was one of only a few tweeting, and her college did not see Twitter as adding value to a journalist's toolkit.
This baffled me. I assumed most journalists - hell, most people (apart from Oprah and look how she's caught up) - had heard of or tried this micro-blog lark. I assumed that J-students across the country were being taught it, experimenting with different ways of using Twitter and finding out how to being conversations, crowdsource and engage with audiences online.

Er, no.

Why, when there is so much competition not only to get a job in journalism but to simply get the story and be first, or just to be the one people engage with, would a lecturer would not give their students access to as many useful tools as possible?
So, while the Twitter canon is extensive enough without me adding to it, I thought I'd lay out why I think journalists should use Twitter. Just in case my J-student needs some extra ammo...

1. Twitter makes you build a network. There are no shortcuts; you have to think about who to follow, what you can discover from them, who they follow and why. You have to initiate conversations, engage with total strangers, put in some effort and maybe head up get some blind alleys, before you start seeing results. If you're a journalism student, I'd say that's a pretty fair introduction to your first few weeks in the 'real' job.

2. Breaking news gets tweeted, often, and with links and, increasingly, with photos. Twitter is not always first with the news, and I wouldn't take all tweets as gospel, but it gives journalists who use it a very useful edge on those that don't, as well as access to people at the centre of the maelstrom. Plus there's a certain satisfaction in telling your newsdesk about a big breaking story they don't know...

3. Sometimes its hard to know who you're writing for - it's not your newsdesk, or your editor, but these might be the loudest views you get to hear when you start out in a newsroom. Then there are mosaic groups selected by your marketing department, your print readers, your online audience, the casual reader to consider. Using Twitter you get to talk to a cross-section of all of them, find out what's important to them. Do that and, along with your other external networks, it will give you an idea of what's relevant to your readers, rather than what the office thinks is important.

4. By engaging with people you learn - whether it's individuals, communities or simply geography, Twitter helps you gain knowledge.
Find out what what blogs and websites people you who inspire you enjoy have or simply read, who they admire/loathe and what they view as emerging trends. What is important to them; it's like having a personal shopper to help you pick out what suits you best.

5. You get to engage complete strangers on Twitter, in an informal and open way. You have to get to the point in 140 characters or less, and that means people tend get to the point. It's often easier for me to send someone a DM than an email and it just feels more like natural conversation. Twitter can enhance reputations (#followfriday), gives you access to some experts in their field, or question politicians (and see what other people are asking them). And, should you care, you get to see where all the Showbiz reporters on the nationals are nicking their 'exclusives' from, well in advance.

6. Using Twitter to crowdsource often means you can seek opinions on issues, even if you aren't near a computer. I used it during a product development meeting this week:



...and got 10 replies in less than two minutes. Really useful.

7. Journalists who get stuck in the office with only each other and press officers to speak to can sometimes get isolated from reality. But online conversations - blog comments, forums, tweets - are great levellers. If you've built up a good relationship with your local network, they're probably going to come to you with tricky questions occasionally (Why has your paper gone up 5p? Why didn't you cover x-story?) and these are on a public timeline. You can't ignore them - if you do, you're not engaging with your network - and others will be watching for your answer so you have to draw on untapped wells of tact and diplomacy. Believe me, it's a good skill to acquire.

So that's my take on the subject. Three J-students have asked me this week why Twitter is important to newspapers and, although I'd say the real question is 'why is Twitter important to journalists' I think it's a shame their colleges aren't helping them find the answers too.

"No one tells a story like a journalist"

I was lucky enough to spend a day with the Journalism Leaders Programme members last week. As ever, it was like having a brain-valet and I came away with a lot to think about.

As part of the day I got to attend the University's Harris Lecture, which was an insight into the digital transformation of the Daily Telegraph by Mark Skipworth, executive editor of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph.
He spoke with enthusiasm, fielding some searching questions from Journalism students along the way.

And then he said something so unexpected, you could almost see people asking themselves if they'd heard right. The phrase that stopped us in our tracks was this:

"No one tells a story like a journalist."

Ouch, that's a poorly-expressed phrase, I thought. Except it wasn't - it was what he absolutely believed... with his next breath he went on to dismiss the ability of bloggers to provide quality, impartial reportage.
I think it proceeded along in this vein but the muttering around me had actually become more interesting than the fuddled point the speaker was labouring towards. (Which was, I think, that journalists are impartial and quest for the truth.)

Now, as a journalist I do indeed strive to be impartial; I have even been known to quest for the truth. I also know, however, that it's incredibly easy pick an angle, inject my own views and editorialise the words as they are written.
Once a reporter has written their impartial story, it passes through several other pairs of hands, who might each add their own views, without necessarily even knowing they are doing it.
Story construction, where it is placed in the paper or on the homepage, the occasional adjective, headlines - even how accompanying images are laid out can shade meaning and influence a reader.

Now consider a story told by Terence Edent, a Vodaphone employee, who last summer filmed himself as a train passenger being stopped and searched by police at under the Terrorism Act. No one, I'd suggest, could tell this story like Terence Edent. It is perfect - right down to the police comment (although you can tell they'd much rather he rang their press office.) A journalist could add to this but why? What would they be adding? Some back-story perhaps.

The truth is that everyone has a story that they tell best, it usually begins "Guess what happened to me...". Some people have a skill of telling others' stories (often using a mobile, loudly, in the train's Quiet car), and some people are lucky enough to get a job that pays them to tell others' stories.

If you believe only a journalist can tell the story then you're closing your eyes, ears and mind to the millions of people out there who are telling their own stories their own ways - from blogging to microblogging, Flickr to YouTube, Bambuser to Blip.FM.
If as journalists we are open minded enough to listen, then we can sometimes find and re-tell these stories to our readers. Remember Stephen Fry's 'stuck lift' story? I followed it on Twitter using hashtags but it was repackaged and retold in the tabloids two days later.

If we aren't open-minded, then we may find ourselves headed down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. I am not a dinosaur; I don't intend to drown in the newsprint tar pits. I'm going to try to keep listening out for other people telling their stories instead.


* If you want a summary of the Digital Editors Network session I'd recommend Sarah Hartley's post here and there's an unedited recording of the Journalism Leaders Forum to be found via here.

Should readers have more control over newspaper websites?

A few days ago I asked Aren't We All Journalists? and had a response I thought was very interesting.
Essentially, Captain Mac asked if I thought there should be a place on newspaper websites that people could fill themselves? He suggested a "whole section - that people could write stories on, reviews, opinion pieces, list events, drag in links from other sites etc".

So I started wondering: Why would people use our sites when they could easily set up a blog (or a website) themselves and share their views, reviews, events or whatever? Also, how many regional newspapers in the UK already have relinquished some control to readers?

Personally I can't think of a good reason why regional newspaper websites couldn't host, for example, wikis for people to use for sharing information, links, advice or events? While alternative sites will certainly exist on the web we'd have nothing to lose in offering similar. And given the trust that most newspaper brand names still retain (despite dwindling print sales) they should have a good chance of succeeding, if nurtured and promoted well.
And even if such sites didn't capture the public imagination, we would at least have tried out a new idea and given online users the choice, instead of simply 'managing' the information ourselves.

Why shouldn't we hand over more control to users? The LFC and EFC Banter sites on the Liverpool Daily Post website do that now to a certain extent and, despite being launched only a few weeks ago, are hugely popular. Of course, you could argue that football fan sites are a special case - but look at the Evening Gazette on Teeside with its award-winning hyperlocal sites where content is directly uploaded by more than 150 community bloggers.

The beauty of online newspaper sites is that most ideas go from conception to reality in a short space of time - sometimes just hours. How long does it take to add a new section to the printed paper? It can take months - and occasionally a good idea suffers a lingering death-by-committee.
So I'd have to say the redoubtable Captain Mac makes an excellent point with his response and my answer would have to be yes, I reckon there is. But that's just me... I'd love to know what others thought.

Aren't we all journalists?

I'm intrigued by this - I think it's a phenomenon which is going to become increasingly prevalent as citizen journalism flourishes.
It's interesting Clinton and Obama are bleating they didn't know they were being filmed - ie they were 'on the record' - because surely politicians this far up the greasy poll must know that nothing, ultimately, is private.
I know there are real concerns in the industry about the veracity of citizen journalism - I say, bring it on, and the sooner the better.

I didn't get into news because I wanted to file an elegantly-turned phrase (if I did I would have become a magazine feature writer); I became a journalist because a) my mum told me to, and b) because I wanted to tell people things. I wanted to be the one that everyone listened to in the pub because I knew stuff.
That's what citizen journalism is, for me. It's silencing the rest of the crowd because you have interesting things to tell that no one else knows.
We are driven to communicate with others and impart information; that's why Twitter is so compelling - it's 140 characters of information, no matter how banal some tweets may seem, they will be devoured by readers who want to know.

Citizen journalism is something we need at a fundamental level - it is Everyman, Everywhere, ready to tell the story. I think this blog post from Media Idea Lab offers some very good insights into the concept.
On the whole I believe citizen journalism is a very fine thing for the newspaper industry - we just need to know how to embrace it rather than sneer at it.