The pursuit of snarkiness, or:

Why I champion Freedom of Speech and yet hate Citizen Journalism

- A study in dichotomy by Matthew Ryan

Throughout the course of my degree in Law and Media Communications at the Queensland University of Technology, I have run up against two ideas that run along a parallel course towards one philosophy, and yet I cannot seem to overcome my distaste for one and my unabashed love for the other – the concept of Freedom of Speech and Citizen Journalism.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads thusly:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Effectively, what the First Amendment conveys upon the citizens of the USA is the freedom of expression, of religion, of the right to free association and the freedom of the press to investigate and report on whatever it sees fit to print. The freedom of expression guaranteed there and elsewhere has enabled people from all walks of life to be able to speak their mind without fear of reprisal. It allows me to scream of the rooftops that Axel Bruns is a tax-cheat and an illegal immigrant, but has epic facial hair. It has allowed the Communist Party in the 50’s to form free of fear, the protesting of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, rigged elections, Apartheid and climate change. It has been used as the justification behind everything from flag burning to neo-Nazism to being able to rail against flag burning and Neo-Nazism. It allows the Brisbane Socialist Alternative Weekly to educate me about "The secret politics of Martin Luther King". For me, personally, it has allowed me to blog freely, swear liberally and listen to the prettiest sound in the world: the dulcet tones of a female Cambridge accent lilting forth from the youth hostels of Brisbane.

Citizen Journalism, then, should be right up my alley. It’s all about free speech, the democratization of news media, and the freedom of the press. And yet I have no use for it. If I want my news, I’ll go to a reputable news outlet, thank you very much. I have nothing against the people who test to see if the pen really is mightier than the sword, I just cannot bring myself to generate any interest in their attempts to cover issues that might very well be important to them but mean little to nothing to me.

Shaye Bowman and Chris Willis, in their report “We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information”, claim that “the intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires”. That’s fine, it really is. But don’t expect me to care about it. Citizen Journalism is responsible for the spread of 9/11 rumors, alligators in the sewers, UFOs, crop circles and the fact that Axel Bruns is a tax cheat and an illegal immigrant. Woodward and Bernstein weren’t citizen journalists. They worked for the Washington Post. Those who are motivated to take up the pen and chronicle the issues that matter to them are usually activists within a community, and are far more prone to abandon even the very pretense of objectivity or adhere to the strict ideals of journalistic ethics. Tom Grubisich, in his study of citizen journalism concludes that “the best citizen journalism sites at the community level buzz with activity. That didn't happen spontaneously. The proprietors of both sites know their communities, are passionately engaged with them and, in their own ways, are not afraid to put on editor's (or motivator's) hats.”

I personally have no use for hyper-localized content, and activist’s blogging about issues that concern them. History will not record the reporting of a lone Afghani in the days of the invasion of Iraq – it will record the motivations behind the opposing forces, the political turmoil and the loss of life. It frustrates me somewhat that in an age of real community interaction, where the internet is becoming a tool for charities, and social interaction is fuelling police actions and investigations, that blogging about micro-issues of a fairly limited frame of importance is being elevated to such an extent that it is being studied in a university degree and being trumpeted as a truly integral part of participatory culture, when it appears to me to be a fringe group pressing a radical agenda. Show me the difference between a Greenie blogging about deforestation in their electorate and a neo-Nazi railing against Judaism. And yet, in its own magical pontification, the concept of freedom of speech validates the greenie, the Nazi, the Jew and the university student.

Bowman, S. and Willis, C. "We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information." 2003, The Media Center at the American Press Institute.

Grubisich, T. "Grassroots journalism: Actual content vs. shining ideal." October 6, 2005, USC Annenberg, Online Journalism Review.

Some good, old fashioned Wiki-truths

Much has been made of the inherent danger of user-generated and “crowdsourced” websites whose information might be perceived as flawed and unreliable. After all, anyone could have written it. The anonymity of the web means that anyone with a (usually free) registered account, time on their hands and an axe to grind can post information, alter information or vandalise open content project without fear or favour.

Wikipedia is always cited as the leading example of potentially deceptive information when it comes to research gathering on the web. Anyone can alter it, anyone can post information that is flagrantly misleading and as a result it is said to be a wholly unreliable source. In spite of recent news about who posts what on Wikipedia, there is still much value to be found in terms of what Wikipedia can offer society, or even just the casual user.

In 2005, a study by UK science magazine “Nature” found that Wikipedia in fact comes very close to the level of accuracy recorded in the traditionally revered Encyclopaedia Britannica. “The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three”, reports “”Nature”. While this in itself was not a peer-reviewed exercise, it was a reputable journalistic magazine which carried out the study. This kind of repeated self-referentialism is always difficult to overcome when debating the merits of free-source, user generated content.

The thing is, though, people do know things. While they may not always show it, everyone knows something about something, and someone will always be willing to step up and tell someone that they’re wrong. Birds of a feather flock together – people who are the same will find ways to communicate and interact. It’s the way of the world. The same rules that apply in the real world apply in the virtual one. Wikipedia itself has put in place measures that protect the integrity of the information that is contained within. Vandalism is usually quickly found and reverted, and according to Wikipedia itself “often before users can tell the difference” and issues and occurrences are often parodied, most notably by comedian Stephen Colbert, who edited his Wikipedia entry live on air.

This kind of open source, user-generated community building will always have its detractors. But despite its shortcoming and its flaws (both real and perceived), Wikipedia remains one of the best examples of a website whose success has been wholly as a result of the contributions of its users and the community that has risen around their creation.