Bias the key motivator in shift to citizen generated content?
Friday, September 25, 2009 by cbic004
A discussion in tutorial this week spurred my interest in considering the concepts of social democracy and bias in mainstream media in comparison to ‘citizen media’ (e.g. blogs and citizen journalism). In general, one of the main criticisms of citizen generated content, (and indeed the main critique of citizen journalism from professional traditional journalists) is the production of amateur, unreliable, and unedited material. The idea that anyone can contribute to the news shapes popular perception that unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories can be published as fact, together with inaccurate statements that can cause offence. It is true that most information produced in blogs or citizen journalism has not gone through the arduous process of being checked by editors, subeditors and fact checkers as is in traditional professional journalism. However, one could argue that this editing and fact checking process is instead increasingly peer to peer and just as effective, if not more socially democratic, than the more traditional ‘top down’ approach. Quality control checking instead has become more dispersed throughout the community and in this respect, potentially less bias than a single expert who has there own point of view, method and deadlines to meet. It also removes the bias of profit being a non-profit operation. This sounds overwhelming good on surface; however, one may question whether this is really decreasing bias and creating more social democracy? Or is bias simply being embraced in a new form?
The challenges facing ‘old media’ or traditional mainstream journalism seems to be an overwhelming sense of bias - perceived or real. It is true that if you take your average new paper or news bulletin, you can generally recognise a collective stance on many issues - however they do often offer room to opposing opinion. My question is whether it is this apparent bias that has created the shift away from mainstream media? If so, it seems a bit ironic that we would instead embrace such opinion-based desktop reportage, in particular blogs which often feature highly opinionated and emotive material which can be notoriously bias (and indeed this is often there selling point). A lot can be said about this, and it is worth discussing, yet I realise the potential distortion of conflating form and content. Perhaps there is more to this shift. The blogosphere itself, featuring enthusiastic debate amongst a variety of opinions, is potentially more balanced with regards to its form and how it works. People can link to other sources surrounding the debate. This is something that doesn’t happen in mainstream media as networks are in competition with each other. Thus the range and multiplicity of citizen generated content and the ability to link to other sources can be seen as a counter reaction to a single editorial voice.
Mind you, on the subject of voices, it is interesting to contemplate the extent to which there is a ‘collective’ voice in the blogosphere. An interesting feature brought up in tutorial was to consider the massive un-equalising factor of free time. Certainly those who have the most access, motivation and time to contribute to citizen media will ultimately have a dominating voice. Though no longer faced with the bias of profit, the blogosphere instead encounters the bias of the affluence of free time. This could well be a contributing factor to Garcelon’s (2006) description of Indymedia as being dominated by middle class youth.
All in all I am still undecided as to which media is the least bias and more socially democratic, or indeed whether they are both equally bias. Thus further considerations, comments, critiques are most welcome.
The challenges facing ‘old media’ or traditional mainstream journalism seems to be an overwhelming sense of bias - perceived or real. It is true that if you take your average new paper or news bulletin, you can generally recognise a collective stance on many issues - however they do often offer room to opposing opinion. My question is whether it is this apparent bias that has created the shift away from mainstream media? If so, it seems a bit ironic that we would instead embrace such opinion-based desktop reportage, in particular blogs which often feature highly opinionated and emotive material which can be notoriously bias (and indeed this is often there selling point). A lot can be said about this, and it is worth discussing, yet I realise the potential distortion of conflating form and content. Perhaps there is more to this shift. The blogosphere itself, featuring enthusiastic debate amongst a variety of opinions, is potentially more balanced with regards to its form and how it works. People can link to other sources surrounding the debate. This is something that doesn’t happen in mainstream media as networks are in competition with each other. Thus the range and multiplicity of citizen generated content and the ability to link to other sources can be seen as a counter reaction to a single editorial voice.
Mind you, on the subject of voices, it is interesting to contemplate the extent to which there is a ‘collective’ voice in the blogosphere. An interesting feature brought up in tutorial was to consider the massive un-equalising factor of free time. Certainly those who have the most access, motivation and time to contribute to citizen media will ultimately have a dominating voice. Though no longer faced with the bias of profit, the blogosphere instead encounters the bias of the affluence of free time. This could well be a contributing factor to Garcelon’s (2006) description of Indymedia as being dominated by middle class youth.
All in all I am still undecided as to which media is the least bias and more socially democratic, or indeed whether they are both equally bias. Thus further considerations, comments, critiques are most welcome.