Jeff Hankins of Arkansas Business offers an interesting opinion piece today in the print edition of his publication. In it he discusses the challenges presented by the growing phenomenon called “citizen journalism.” On Twitter, he challenged me to a response. Ask and ye shall receive.
In 2003, Bowman and Willis in “We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information,” published in The Media Center at The American Press Institute, defined citizen journalism as “the concept of members of the public “playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information.” The authors state, “The intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires.”
Mr. Hankins doesn’t quarrel with the notion that citizen journalism exists, or, more specifically, that it should exist. He writes, “The value, relevance and opportunities of social media and citizen journalism are clear to me. We at Arkansas Business are active participants in the phenomenon from every direction.”
Rather, his concern stems from the anonymity that permeates the online space (“anonymous blog and Twitter postings are routine”) which leads to the spreading of inaccurate and unreliable information. It’s a fair and reasonable concern; in an ideal world everyone would comment using their own name and be willing (and mature enough) to stand behind what they say. Naturally, any factual assertions would also be accurate. But we don’t live in a Walt Disney movie.
Mr. Hankins’ concern is illustrated by news that Arkansas State University president Les Wyatt was rumored to be a candidate for the presidency at Ole Miss. Blogs reported it and television stations picked it up. It wasn’t true, but as Mr. Hankins writes, “Wyatt can’t make all that go away with a phone call to a newspaper editor or television news director.” I guess being mentioned for the Ole Miss job is a really bad thing.
But that’s not the issue, I realize. Clearly, the information was wrong, and because of the vast network of blogs along with the subsequent reliance on their accuracy by television stations, the information was disseminated to the public causing Mr. Wyatt some headache. “Leaks of confidential information and general marketing nightmares can develop and spread fast and freely,” Mr. Hankins notes.
This spreading of misinformation is a natural extension of what we commonly refer to as the water cooler conversation. People have been spreading rumors, lies and embarrassing details about friends, family members, colleagues and adversaries long before the Internet was contemplated. Don’t be foolish enough to believe this is a by-product of the World Wide Web.
Just like a well-respected newspaper (See NY Times and Jayson Blair), a national television station (See 60 Minutes II on President George W. Bush’s National Guard Service Record), a national magazine (See Stephen Glass of The New Republic) and a nationally syndicated radio program (See Rush Limbaugh perpetuating a blatantly false theory that Vince Foster was murdered and that the Clinton White House was involved in a conspiracy to cover it up), blogs will get it wrong from time to time. Current checks and balances within traditional news organizations never allow for 100% accuracy. They do all that they can to ensure accuracy; citizen journalists should do the same with or without the backstop of libel insurance.
Like traditional media outlets, citizen journalists should also admit when they get it wrong. I want to believe that they do (at least those that want to keep readers coming back to their blogs), although Mr. Hankins disagrees. He writes, “Mainstream media routinely publish corrections and clarifications, but citizen journalists rarely point out their errors or the erroneous information from others that they pass along.”
It’s a generalization that cannot be taken seriously. He offers no examples of bloggers that have failed to admit when the information they publish is inaccurate. I could easily state that there are numerous examples of newspapers furrowing their brow at the thought of printing a correction or a retraction. But without proper authority you wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) believe me.
Furthermore, and as Mr. Hankins would certainly agree, the action of one newspaper doesn’t beget the action of another. The same is true for blogs.
As citizen journalism continues to evolve policy makers will have to determine what rules we place on online outlets. To make that determination we have to weigh the benefit of the free and (generally) unfiltered exchange of information against the burden of the likelihood that false information will be generated to the determent of our citizenry. Put another way, and to quote Thomas Jefferson, “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
A final point: without blogs we might not have known about the Monica Lewinsky scandal when we did; the inaccuracy of the 60 Minutes II report noted above; or Arkansas and U.S. Senate hopeful Kim Hendren’s hateful and bigoted remark about New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, blogs, public forums, message boards, Twitter and whatever we think of next allow people to read and absorb information in new ways. As a result, now more than ever, people are reading the news and engaging in public discussion about issues of the day. It’s not always happening in the editorial section of our daily and weekly newspapers, on our local newscasts, or in the glossy pages of our weekly magazines. But it is happening. Despite the initial discomfort surely we can agree that’s a good thing.
[...] Rutherford also responds to Hankins’ column in a new post here. Noted: “People have been spreading rumors, lies and embarrassing details about friends, [...]
Blake,
I think that you and Jeff both have outstanding points in your opinion pieces today. I’ll add the perspective of businesses and managing the public relations and reputation efforts in a citizen journalism environment. Social media has been a tremendous benefit to the PR industry. Creating communities and engaging our audiences with the message is the foundation of any true PR strategy. Social media – blogs, Twitter, Facebook, you name it – allows companies and organizations to truly engage in two-way conversations with customers and stakeholders.
Companies are now not only disseminating information to their publics, they’re listening and learning about their products and services from their customers. Maybe it’s through a blog post or a tweet or a picture someone uploaded to Flickr, but they are listening and responding. These and the hundreds of other new tools are helping companies interact, engage and build relationships.
But we all know building and cultivating relationships is hard. It takes time, and you run the risk of damaging that relationship if the conversation isn’t grounded in truth. Businesses and organizations must be fully aware that their actions and words WILL make it to their audiences – no matter if that’s in a printed magazine or on a blog comment. Those of us in the public relations industry can tell you that our counsel to our clients hasn’t changed because of social media. We’ve always advocated telling the truth, being upfront about things, and being a source to those reporting your news. None of that has changed with the boom of social media.
I would say that with the addition of all these media vehicles, from Twitter to YouTube to Blake’s Think Tank, public relations professionals are in the best role to help companies navigate the sometimes-murky waters of social media. In an environment where information moves at tremendous speed, public relations is one marketing and communications discipline that can keep pace. Michael Cherenson, 2009 chairman for the Public Relations Society of America, said it best in a recent blog post: “Social media are built on authenticity and the ability to trust ‘people like me.’ Public relations professionals are — and will remain — the antenna, conscience and voice of the organizations we represent. We are the trust builders, speaking in credible voices while adhering to ethical communications principles.”
Citizen journalism is here to stay, and as a PR professional, I am extremely happy about that. Every day, companies are searching for ways to engage with their publics. Citizen journalism allows us to do that in a way like never before. Citizen journalism keeps us on our toes, and that’s a good thing. Remaining accountable to our publics and earning their trust should be our top priority.
And to answer Jeff’s tweet about whether people are aware of how “on the record” they are. That’s a PR basic principle: NEVER say something to a room full of people (even if that room has only 2 people) that you don’t want to be public. The widespread creation of blogs and Twitter accounts doesn’t really change that. I have always – and will always – remind clients on a daily basis that they are never truly “off the record.”
Like many changes, I still submit this will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
While you cite things like Rush Limbaugh and 60 Minutes II, the big difference with inaccurate reporting there is that WE KNOW WHO MADE THE MISTAKE.
On another point, there are those who liken blogs, twitter and social media in general to so-called “Water Cooler conversation”, where things that are un-checked get said and passed along. The difference is that those conversations may spread to dozens. Once it’s on the internet, it spreads to…hundreds? Thousands? Ten’s of thousands?
Make no mistake, I’m in favor of more information, not less. I’m in favor of more involvement, not less. I’m in favor of more people watching government, not less.
But I’m also in favor of more accountability, not less.
I agree that it will be interesting to observe how and if Government attempts to regulate this, but my guess it was be the civil courts where we see this play out.
If one feels strongly enough about something to post it to the internet, they should be proud enough of their work to sign it!
And if one tries to make the nexus to “confidential sources”, he/she should remember that if you want to be a Journalist, citizen or otherwise, you should know the difference between a “source” and a “Journalist”.
And with regard to Natalie’s post — I grew up in New Jersey, where we learned early that the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead!
I vote for a Hawkins v. Rutherford debate for the next Stone Ward SWIM!
Hankins believed that Les Wyatt was a candidate for the presidency at Ole Miss? Lets get real. Next thing you know, Dickey Nutt will be up for the Kentucky job if the NCAA slams the door on Cal or maybe Steve Roberts is up the Cowboys job once Wade is asked to retire. Put it in on a blog or television and the loyal ASUer Hankins will believe that his ASU guy is up for the job. Sure, I’m off topic, but this is the more disturbing part of the whole exchange.
Let’s not forget the end user in all of this. I feel today’s media consumer is very savvy and do dig deeper than one blog post or one twitter to make their opinions. That is why consistent message across all media is important.
I just read the article. Hankins believes that headhunters contacted Wyatt for the Ole Miss presidency? This is good stuff.
As with other media, credibility seeks its own level. And while the water cooler has indeed been writ large, the fact that Jeff Hankins issues his own corrections on Twitter makes him a more trusted source than the guy with the owly-faced avatar.
[...] Hundred Years War: Blogger Blake Rutherford gives Arkansas Business publisher Jeff Hankins what for on questions of new vs. old media. (Blake’s Think [...]
There’s been an internal debate in old media for years about the role of citizen journalism. Many have rejected the thought, the very idea that average people (An Army of Davids to quote Glenn Reynolds) can have a vital hand in journalism. I still work with many of those that reject the concept of CJs.
However, I followed a very non-traditional career path to news producer, so I may be a little more ready to welcome this very fundamental change in reporting than some of my journalism school grad co-workers. Besides, what are we going to do? Put the genie back in the bottle?
[...] week, which we noted and commented on yesterday, has sparked a response from Blake Rutherford over at the Think Tank as well as several follow-up comments from folks including Tyson Foods’ Ed Nicholson, PR pro [...]
The great thing about this debate is that, essentially, everybody is correct about something. Sadly, the layers of editorial checking that some of us “oldtimers” grew up with don’t exist today. Stories are published or make a TV broadcast with little in the way of fact-checking. Consider the correction in today’s Democrat-Gazette – An AP article misspelled Obama’s first name. That means the AP writer goofed, the AP editor didn’t catch it and the Democrat-Gazette editor missed it, too. I understand Hankins’ concerns, but also believe that the viewers/readers must take on greater responsibility in questioning some of the information passed along by community journalists and/or bloggers, and (perhaps) even the mainstream media. Here’s an idea: would an Arkansas Bloggers’ Association help lend credibility to writers here? We’d be willing to tackle the creation, if there’s enough interest.
I’m all about what Doug said. Journalists used to be held accountable to the extent that a small error (even one involving an additional letter added to a name in print) could lead to termination from employment. There was a standard to meet, and a vetting process that required “front line” journalists at the larger broadcast outlets and publications to have gone through a very extensive process of learning and growing before being allowed to even enter a newsroom in a journalistic capacity. Alas, today’s bottom-line world and the instant nature of the Information Superhighway has put many of us out to pasture in favor of less experienced, less vetted and often non-vetted semi-professionals who may or may not have the skills to properly research a story. Add in the speed at which information spreads and the viability of the rumorsphere, and you get a mass of media that may be (intentionally or not) faulty and indeed somewhat inaccurate in what it distributes to the population. The question that faces all of us is how do we sift the truth from innuendo and errors? Who do you trust? And what are you going to believe?
That being said, I am all about a blogger alliance.
[...] to everyone for the spirited and thoughtful discussion in response to a point-counterpoint between Arkansas Business publisher Jeff Hankins and The Think Tank on citizen journalism. I strongly urge [...]
A Blogger’s Association? Great idea. Let’s meet at Starbucks. I’ll put it on my list of things to do, along with David’s Facebook club and Lance’s Twitter club.
If any of those organizations ever decides to make a serious effort at addressing the real problem – our state’s 49th-place standing in broadband infrastructure – I might attend a meeting someday.
Mr. Ward, I’m all for trying to leverage the collective interest of the blogosphere to expand broadband in Arkansas. I’m heading to the 2009 Social Communications Summit in NYC on June 23-24 to discuss that very issue. I’m not sure if this association would be the appropriate platform for that, but we can let Mr. Krile and others let us know.
How are anonymous tweets and blog postings that different than reporters reporting information from “anonymous” sources? Reporters are just people and sometimes they get duped by a source that has an agenda and spreads it as news.
And realistically, yes Mr. Hankins newspapers post corrections but it’s usually in very small type hidden on page 8 of the paper.
Maybe once upon a time, newspapers were the bastions of truth but with all the scandals that Blake mentioned combined with the brouhaha that has people calling Fox news “Fauxnews” and conservatives calling out the “liberal Elite” media. I’m not so sure that there’s anybody without a bias of some sort.
Look at any national event, watch CNN’s coverage of it and then watch Fox News’s coverage it. OR read the New York Times coverage of it and then read the Washington Times coverage of it.
There’s always been slants, bias, etc. long before there was the web. Ask anybody who remembers the days when there were two papers in Arkansas. I’m not sure the web has anything to do with it.
These days “Deep Throat” would have his own blog instead of calling Woodward and Bernstein..
Good debate. I think we ought to do one of those celebrity boxing matches to settle it. You know, like Screech and that kid from Whatchu talkin’ ’bout Willis fame. Imagine Hankins and Rutherford punching it out like two valiant knights of old! Use it as a fundraiser for something or the other. I’d buy a ticket or two to see it.
This is a comment from Jeff Hankins. It was sent to me via e-mail to post because something is off with the commenting system. I’m working on getting that fixed. In the meantime, here’s what he has to say:
A few responses for good ‘ol JMT whoever you are:
1. I didn’t say I thought Les Wyatt was a candidate for Ole Miss. However, he has done an excellent job at ASU, has strong ties to Ole Miss as former vice chancellor, and would do a fine job for them.
2. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a Dickey Nutt fan for various reasons.
3. What remains disturbing about blogs is that people make comments like yours from behind a curtain while the rest of us put our names with our opinions.
Hankins and Rutherford are both right in their assertions. What we see here is probably a difference in value systems. They appear to work this way:
– Hankins’ group (mainstream media, whatever you wish to call it) has an institutionalized and somewhat disciplined system of watching out for accuracy, when the system works right. Somebody writes a story, an editor reads it, it’s published/uploaded. If an error is discovered later then the same process unfolds to publish/upload the correction. The writers are well aware that an error found after the fact can make their lives less comfortable with their editors. If an incorrect item gets out, the level of angst among the journalists involved can get pretty high along with the incentive to not let it happen again.
– Rutherford’s group (new media, whatever you wish to call it) consists of a lot of people who’ve never worked in conventional newsrooms. Looser environments without the eagle-eyed editor on the prowl for errant copy. Maybe somebody reads their copy before uploading, or maybe not. Some of the blog-only sites are more transparent than others, so it may be easier for a wronged party to state his or her case to the blogger. It’s an evolving situation. If an incorrect item gets out, the level of bloggers’ angst isn’t often too high. Breaks, man.
I still love the blogs and I can tell Hankins is a fan too, probably moreso than Rutherford would concede. I hear Hankins wishing aloud that the blogs would evolve a bit faster, if possible, and that meanwhile everyone else should be aware of the changing order.