What do the editors think?

Now, the BBC constructed an experiment using a 'citizen journalist' called Frankie Roberto in 2006. To read the full article go to 'A citizen among journalists'.

It says at the beginning:

"News, almost without exception, is provided by trained journalists who are paid to do the job. But the rise of the "citizen journalist", aided by the camera phone and the blog, is rivalling the authority of traditional reporting. So what if the two cultures were to collide?"

This is what the BBC experiment wanted to try and answer. Which is great, bearing in mind what we're looking at; to what extent does citizen journalism pose a threat to traditional broadcasting techniques?

Well, as Frankie Roberto says, some events that have happened in the not so distant past, "have even come to rely upon this "user-generated content"...where professional journalists and cameramen haven't been able to get to the scene fast enough."

He cites the Thames whale sighting, the Buncefield oil explosion, and the 7/7 bombings as good examples where all news coverage had photos from passers-by and published them online and in the press.

He continues to say;

"Blogging takes this one step further, by allowing people to publish their photography, news and opinion, while retaining complete control over the content. If you've got a story to tell, you no longer need to go to a news publisher to tell it."

But one of the questions, which I have touched on before, is how do news editors decide what is important and what is not, and what can be used as a representational prospect for an angle on a news story?

Well, in the day-to-day running of a newsroom, editors have to decide which press release is real news, or is just a PR campaign, or how to make sure a news story is reported fairly, objectively and accurately. How should they rank the stories in order of importance and who should they use as sources for quotes, reaction and information? Now, however, editors also have to incorporate the decision about how to use user-generated content with similar objectives of treatment.

On 'The Editors' Blog' part of the BBC website, in January this year Peter Horrocks wrote about the 'Value of citizen journalism'. On the 7th January he gave a speech to the University of Leeds' Institute of Communications Studies on this subject, and later that day posted his speech with his discursive additions, and of course, a 'have your say'.

He says:

"Text messages and e-mails from our audiences have brought a valuable additional aspect to our journalism. But how much attention should we pay to people who care strongly enough about an issue to send a message? They might either be typical of a wide part of the audience perhaps, or just a tiny minority."

What I particularly like about this blog is that he discusses the BBC's treatment of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. He mentions about how the BBC considered, albeit fleetingly, to freeze the comment recommendation facility on the BBC website for this story.

He says this, "tells you something about the power and potential danger of the new intensity of the interaction between the contributing public, journalists and audiences."

The reason for this potential freeze of that portion of the BBC's website is because of comments posted by members of the public which ostensibly over-looked the analysis of Bhutto's death, politically, 'humanitarianly', and prospectively. Instead, many of the 'most recommended' posts were vocalisations against Islam.

Peter Horrocks says:

"...why did we briefly consider freezing this forum? A small part of our thinking was that in the context of the death of a significant international figure, who was herself Muslim, we thought that the weight of remarks could be offensive to some users...Might some readers believe that such views as 'most recommended' represented an editorial line by BBC News? I suspect not, but there was at least that danger. But our real question concerned the editorial value of the comments and how far they should influence our coverage more widely."

Despite the brief debate about whether to turn off the forum, in the end the BBC chose not to. Mr Horrocks mentions the fact that the BBC has made a commitment to listening to the views of its audience. Interestingly however, he then goes on to say he has no doubt, "...how any attempt to down-play or disregard their comments would have been seen - as censorship and a conspiracy by the BBC to prevent their strongly held views."

So, are the BBC and other news corporations who have thrown open the doors to citizen participation in the news stuck between a rock and a hard place? Now they've opened these doors, it's like that cunning 'savoury snack' advert, 'once you pop you just can't stop'. The participating public have a taste for contribution and like a hungry hyena, want more.

There is no doubt in people's minds that in many respects this participation and contribution is a good and fruitful thing, providing a whole host of additions and extemporisation on news stories and angles. As a consequence of opening the news floodgates to public commentators, anyone can say what they like and the media have to sift through this, as we've said before. As a consequence of this, if user-generated content is being sifted through and analysed for editorial processes and reasons, it can now be seen by some as censorship, without a licence necessarily to do so.

That word, licence also throws up another debate. If the BBC for example is committed to listening to the views of it's audience, yet are syphoning-off the editorially compliant comments of it's audience, think about who is paying the licence fee which supports the BBC; the audience. So surely, if the audience are paying for it, why shouldn't their views be uncensored and freely held in the public sphere? Well of course there are many reasons against this...legal reasons, ethical reasons, taste and decency etc. etc. All of which if weren't adhered to, the audience would also have something to say about, and the Attorney General for that matter!

Peter Horrocks says;

"Of course in one sense it is very useful to understand the strength of feeling on this issue amongst our audiences..." and of course, inviting people to have their say is also useful for editors to appreciate how their audiences are reacting to the news agenda the organisation is setting.

Now the BBC have abolished the original way it was organised to gather the news. Previously it was based around four main departments. Three of these departments have been dissolved which now leaves two "new multimedia" departments, "a multimedia newsroom that is responsible for the core of the BBC News website, our daily TV News operation...and our radio news summaries and bulletins." (Peter Horrocks, Editors Blog, 7th January 2008)

The other department is:

"a multimedia programmes department with responsibility for interviews, investigation and analysis in our current affairs programmes...Within the multimedia newsroom department...we are now preparing a major physical re-organisation to accompany the structural changes...and close to the middle of [this] operation will be our User-Generated Content unit. It will be right alongside the newsgathering teams that deploy our conventional journalistic resources. And the UGC team will be deploying and receiving our unconventional journalistic resources - information and opinion from the audience." (Ibid.)

The concept under scrutiny regarding how much weight should news organisations apply to UGC is a difficult one, but it's certainly one worth considering. The BBC is considering it so much that evidently they're even shaking up the blueprint of BBC HQ...what the effects of this office furniture coalition will be, I'm sure we'll be seeing in future news broadcasts. Already though an effect is that UGC is fully integrated, even in a literal sense, and although the editors think in many respects it is a good addition to news sources, the double-edged sword is still there - the 'be Damned if you do, Damned if you don't' attitude where they cannot please everybody. If they censor/filtrate the UGC (comments etc.) then they could be accused of a dictatorship over the news, if they don't, they run the risk of offending people.

I'll leave you with what I think is one of the most interesting statements that Peter Horrocks makes:

"There is no doubt that the stronger voice of the audience is having a beneficial effect on the range of stories and perspectives that journalists cover...we have an extremely rich range of responses from the audience. That gives us quotes we can use and interviewees we can put on air who have germane real life experiences. Often those experiences challenge or contradict the assumptions that news decision makers or the people who traditionally generate news might hold."

It makes us think, it gives us wider sources, it keeps us in touch with our audiences and invites them to join in and keeps us on our toes...nice!

For more information:

In Peter Horrocks' blog: Value of citizen journalism he also expands very interestingly on how media outlets are coping man-power-wise on the influx of UGC, which I've touched on in previous blogs, gives other examples of UGC and discusses them, talks about representation, and arguments for and against the BBC's approach...

I may do another blog on a few other things he says...but for now, take a read, it's really interesting.