Essays: February 2006 Archives

Diving into the citizen journalism pool is exactly where tv.ku.edu needs to be.

The University should always stay at the cutting edge of the media world and if we're on the blogging bandwagon, why not push it farther? Maybe our site wouldn't have coverage of a bombing abroad, but it did have that video of the Boardwalk fire and should have had cell phone photos of the Granada shooting victim. Our content wouldn't have to be graphic to get attention, just real. What more can we ask for as reporters than to have correspondents everywhere we can't be?

Certainly, it won't always be smooth sailing. There will be dishonesty. but with some fact checking and research, the payback would certainly beat out the downsides.

Major media outlets have already started the citizen journalist wave and it's working for them. I think the important part is differentiating between reporter content and submitted content. If we let readers know up front, this story came from your neighbor and this came from our editor, they can decide how to interpret the message.

Lets face it, the public already doubts our ability to provide them with the truth. By putting our cards on the table, we show them we aren't hiding anything. It's as if we're saying, "This is what we know and here's what we never would've known without your help."

The news should be a public forum.

Now, how to convince a society that is already overcommitted that they should get involved in journalism? I don't think rewarding the contributor financially would be the best move because then stories will start losing credibility. Instead, focus on the act as a civic duty: "By uploading this video, image, or story, you will help your city or country better understand an event that might easily have gone unnoticed." That's the approach we should take.

As a reporter always looking for new story angles and ideas, I welcome citizen journalism with open arms. What better way to contribute to the news then to get a conversation going between professional journalists and members of the community. The concept of citizen journalism is still being tweaked, but if we give it a try we may just get it right.

This brings to mind a famous quote from Jesse Jackson: "If you try you may fail, but if you don't try you're guaranteed to fail."

The first go around at citizen journalism didn't quite work for Dan Gillmor, but after noting his shortcomings he affirms that "a more democratized media is crucial for our common future – grassroots ideas, energy and talent." In this, he points to the solution: the future.

Citizen journalism can and will work. I know this because the youth of this country are entirely more tech-savvy than their previous generations. A study by Pew Internet and American Life Project concludes that 57 percent, yeah that's 12 million, of teenagers who are online, create content for the internet; 19 percent have blogs. I would bet most of their parents have never even heard of a blog. These teens are citizen journalists in the making. They are so used to reality television that they naturally have an untarnished, observing eye for reality – a need for truth.

I think we need to jump in, head first, and test the waters. First, we should start by devoting a section of our web site to non-journalistic citizens who can tell us what they think is news. Second, provide topical questions that spark curiosity and conversation. Third, allow anyone to comment on the stories that are published online and broadcasted on KUJH-TV. Forth, expand our community by enlisting experts in different professions to write about issues pertaining to their specific field. Thus, bringing diversity and thought provoking issues to the conversation. Finally, give people the opportunity to post pictures and video which pertain to stories or community issues to the web site.

I think our model for success is the MSNBC citizen journalism page. Citizens post comment to topical issues that are covered in the news. But there is also opportunity to add your own view by responding to "assignment desk" questions. MSNBC is stirring the pot and it seems to be working; hundreds are responding, while many more are catching on.

For this phenomenon to work there must be a distinction. Professional journalists get paid, while citizen journalists are contributing for their own satisfaction. Credibility and accountability must remain, thus allowing a web site to set guidelines for submissions. But I refrain from saying that a web site should monitor its submissions, because then there would be no point to citizen journalism. I say, bring on citizen journalism, but don't let it take my job in "professional" journalism.

Freedom of speech is a crucial pillar of democracy. Freedom of the press is equally important.

Not anymore. Unfortunately, if I want to be heard by the media, the best way for me to achieve that is to torch and riot.

The recent Muhammad cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten are offensive to Muslims. I get that. As a Christian, I would be vehemently opposed to any cartoon that would portray Jesus in a bad light. And those who have peacefully protested these cartoons deserve the utmost respect. But the rest of the world deserves a chance to see these cartoons and come to their own conclusions.

The world's media should be uniting to defend freedom of the press. Uniting to condemn the violent acts of a few who are determining what the many read. Uniting against suppression. Uniting for freedom.

Instead, they ushering in a new era of censorship by caving in to radicals. In the United States, four editors at the New York Press resigned after they were ordered to remove the cartoon from the weekly publication.

USA Today also chose not to print the offensive cartoons. "We concluded that we could cover the issue comprehensively without republishing the cartoon, something clearly offensive to many Muslims. It's not censorship, self or otherwise," said Jim Michaels, deputy world editor. Really? Because the definition of censoring is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."

National Public Radio refused to even link to the cartoons.

The world media poltroons have also sought the safety of censorship.

In Denmark, the culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper who first commissioned the cartoons was sent on indefinite leave after suggesting he would print Iranian cartoons of the Holocaust.

Sweden recently shut down a far right web site with the printed cartoon.

French President Jacques Chirac condemned French newspapers that printed the cartoon.

In Malaysia, the Sarawak Tribune was shut down indefinitely by the government for showing images banned by the government. A hollow message now greets viewers on the official newspaper site.

In Indonesia, the editor of the publication Peta was arrested on blasphemy charges.

What does all of this mean?

Dark days are ahead for journalism.

The European Union is considering "a code of conduct" that would "self regulate" papers. This concoction of the fearful Western nations is nothing more than appeasement to the lawlessness that is plaguing the world.

Imagine the power this will give other radical groups. What if eco-terrorists oppose any stories on oil? What if disgruntled vegans oppose any advertisements for beef? And Lord only knows what could happen on either side of the debate about future stories on abortion.

The media, and governments for that matter, are punishing and preventing independent thinkers from truly examining controversial stories. Instead, those who slash and burn are rewarded for their violence. The world's media must unite and defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Newspapers across the United States did print this editorial cartoon. And perhaps this cartoon is the most important.

Living in a country that values individual freedoms as much as the United States does, it baffles me that finding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons online is as difficult as it is. Finding the cartoons isn't impossible by any stretch of the imagination, but it's far more difficult than it should be. (For anyone who didn't catch that subtle link above, that is indeed a link to the cartoons.)

Every person in the world has a right to see the cartoons. If you don't like the cartoons, here's a novel idea for you...Don't look at them.

Stephen Colbert does a great job of using comedic license to make light of the situation in a couple different videos from the Colbert Report. The videos deal with tolerance and the idea of kidding (Side note...the linked page changes from day to day as new videos are added, so over time a few clicks on "next" may be required to find the videos "Kidding" and "ThreatDown: Tolerance").

The University of Illinois' newspaper, the Daily Illini, took a much more serious approach to this situation. The newspaper actually printed the cartoons, and has since had a surprising response...an open debate about the issue. The online opinion section of the newspaper includes a letter from the university's chancellor and a letter from the university's student body vice president, who is an active member of the Muslim community. If nothing else, people in Champaign-Urbana get to learn exactly what upset the Muslim community and the reasons why. If only the rest of the country could be so fortunate.

People need to stop being so uptight or the world may begin to actually function the way Colbert satirically jokes. As he puts it, "Tolerance is just a ten dollar word for weakness."

"Because I can" is a great excuse for lots of things -- drinking too much at a party, flirting with your best friend's ex, skipping a class or two. "Because I can" is not a great excuse for publishing offensive content. In the news industry, we should publish things because they are newsworthy, not just because -- but it seems like too many newspapers are publishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons just to prove that they can.

As part of its blog operation, the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash., has several readers who blog about the paper's content. Recently, one of those bloggers called on the Spokesman-Review to publish the cartoons. To me, it sounds like he thinks they should run the cartoons simply to keep the free-speech muscle in shape.

There are many, many points to this controversy that can be argued. There are good arguments for publishing the cartoons, and in eHub's case, perhaps merely linking to them*. There are good arguments for simply describing the cartoons in words. There's valid points on all sides.

But for those who argue for publishing (or linking), keep one thing in mind. The First Amendment protects our right to publish offensive content, but it does not require us to publish offensive content. There's no "buy 11, get the 12th free" punch card, no frequent flyer miles for the First Amendment. If we pass on Mohammad, it doesn't mean that we can't run a story on the next big controversy.

So weigh this content for its own merits. Decide whether it would benefit your readers. Decide whether the actual images are required for your readers to understand why people are so upset. There's no universal right answer for all newspapers, TV stations and web sites. But don't just run the images to flex your free speech muscle.

*By the very nature of the web, sites can and must be judged by what they link to, and their links become part of their own web of content. To me, the difference between an <a href and <img src is aesthetic -- but that is peripheral to my argument here.

Posting the Muslim cartoons on ehub would be a mistake - not only might it put the university in physical danger, as seen by the riots in South Asia, but you will certainly incite student backlash. Maybe the backlash will come in the form of a peaceful discussion, but maybe it will come in the form of a riot or a brick through the newsroom.

Now, that isn't to say that RIck should never run material that might be considered controversial, but to attack religious and cultural beliefs extends beyond acceptable cartoon material.

Because the issue is newsworthy and impacts students, it's important to cover the topic in KU media, but it isn't acceptable to post copies of the comics on our website. Rick should link to the cartoons, with a disclaimer warning viewers of the nature of the content.

The way I see it is we should treat our site like TiVo, let the audience decide what they want to see. Give people the choice to learn more about the controversy, at their discretion. This isn't an Internet dilemma, it's an internet opportunity. We have the ability to provide people with all of the facts, without being too in- your-face. Don't post the cartoons on ehub, be sensitive to your audience, let them be their own gatekeeper.

As I was editing a story about a local Muslim woman's outrage at the twelve cartoons published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten and several reprints in over 14 other countries, I began to debate the consequences of linking the cartoons.

My first impulse was link the caricatures, it adds to the intensity of the story and gives light to the outrage. But the presumed battleground between being sensitive to our audience and protecting our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, isn't necessarily so. By not offering the images, we are upholding ethical standards that should come before sensationalizing and insensitivity.

I can't say "f-you" in a newspaper, because it is offensive to the audience.

So why is it ok to print blasphemous images of the Prophet Muhammad, subsequently offending millions of Muslims? Well, partly because blasphemy doesn't extend to any religious icon besides God.

Denmark's privately owned newpapers are free to print whatever they want and are known for negatively portraying minorities. A 2003 report by the European Network Against Racism stated that "a great deal of media attention in Denmark is given to the seemingly insurmountable differences that divide people, religions and cultures."

The Counterterrorism Blog contends that in response to a heightened "fear of being seen as criticizing Islam in large parts of the Western world, this fear has bred self-censorship," and Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief Carsten Juste decided to print the caricatures for this reason. Fear is the ultimate motivator, but I challenge that if we are not printing the cartoons out of fear, we still reek of insensitively and cowardice.

It is blasphemous in Islamic culture to depict the Prophet Muhammad or any other religious icon, but this does not justify the burning of embassies, flags or violence. Protests have ceased to break out in the U.S. due in part to the sensitivity of the news media as a whole. Only a few newspapers printed the cartoons, including the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun, while many others opted to describe the cartoons and show pictures of violent protests.

But in the end, KUJH-TV is not the place to make a statement about freedom of speech. In a university setting committed to diversity, we must be sensitive to our audience. Posting the links on personal blogs or on the web site is just as harmful as outright displaying them. There's no need for us to add to the fury.

French novelist Gustave Flaubert once said, "Nothing is more humiliating than to see idiots succeed in enterprises we have failed." The blogosphere contains some good information from traditional media outlets. But any idiot with a computer can start a blog, and unfortunately, stupidity can draw just as many hits as any coherent blog.

Sure, there are poignant blogs for politics. Anyone on the right can read Radley Balko or conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. And on the left there are plenty of blogs like Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post or the explosive Michael Moore. And ABC News features a political blog on politics with a more neutral approach.

But in today's era of terrorism, war, and global security, when the United States and the world could be on the brink of a world war, what blog story can unite or divide this nation and set the tone for a possible global catastrophe?

I don't know either, but I did find a cool looking picture of a Mr. Potato Head wearing an R2D2 costume. Alas, one of the most popular blogs, according to Technorati, is www.boingboing.net. This is what future journalists are going to have to compete with.

Got some inside dirt on a political candidate? Boring. How about a corporate scandal that could cost stockholders millions? Eh. But if you have a Flash application that lets you create your own Super Mario Brothers remixes, you could be an instant hit.

With attention spans dwindling because of the 10 second sound byte era, journalists are will have to develop creative sites that offer more than just inflammable rhetoric.

And it is not fair.

Four years (well okay five for me) of college, hours of research, and interviewing sources are not enough for the ever hungry public. Entertainment is the mother's milk of the blogosphere. Got an idea? Just spout it off. No information? Who cares? Just add a few exclamation marks and some flying toasters and you are in the clear. If journalists are going to make a dollar in this growing market, they had better find a unique to draw attention to their sites and throw caution to the wind.

Now excuse while I look up some stories on the nuclear capability of Iran, right after I browse a few pics of Darth Tater.