Centralizing Citizenship: Moving Media to the Middle

In Changing Citizenship, Bennet asserts that there are two basic types of citizens that influence today’s media.  He lists dutiful citizens (DC), ones who maintain an obligation to participate in government and self-actualizing citizens (AC), ones who who have a sense of individual purpose and diminished government.  I think Bennet is right in asserting this comparison and especially in claiming that the digital age is giving way to AC’s in today’s youth.

The power, or perceived power, of the internet seems to give young people confidence in themselves as citizens.  They have grown up with digital technology, they have come of age learning the ins and outs of navigating the internet, playing games, and probably programming. Youth today are less reliant on guides in the digital realm, which other authors have argued is its own environment complete with social capital. These youth hold all the social capital and they wield it as self actualizing citizens who long to control their own experiences, especially in digital media.

Bennet suggests that AC’s are less receptive to the old media model of “balanced, politically neutral, ‘objective news’.” I think the popularity of shows like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show totally refute that assertion.  These shows, while moderately informative, are based as comedy shows. However, there is not doubt that the level of information conveyed and gathered, as well as the conversations sparked among youth, is in its own way informative and mobilizing for young ACs.

ACs, as well as many young DCs, are drawn to programming like this as a way of rejecting the absurdity of radical politics.  While many would argue that these shows are left-leaning, they advocate for a moderate perspective on issues.  They urge compromise and realism when it comes to social, economic and political agendas.  I think that is what draws young people to them, they are tired or radicalized politics and they are using laughter as a form of aggression against the status quo.

I think young people are definitely leaning towards moderate or objective news sources, because they are irritated with the bureaucracy or modern politics and they want to focus on people and the issues as they relate to citizens such as themselves. They believe in the power of individuals because of the influence of the internet, therefore they believe in the need to be attentive to this perspective.  This is where the idea of the vox pop comes in.

Hermes dismissed the importance or power of this media tool.  As Lewis noted, “the public gets what the public wants” in terms of media; and the AC seems to wants  more realistic (if entertaining) approach to issues and politics. Returning to the idea of the vox pop, I think Hermes is wrong to dismiss this tool as overused and overvalued.  It is a polar opposite to the ‘abstract and arcane’ civics lessons Lewis noted.

The vox pop can be an eloquent expression of emotion, and emotion seems to be the motivator for ACs as illustrated through the popularity of comedy/news shows. The emotive sense of solidarity with tother common people, is what motivates the ACs. They believe in themselves and when they see vestiges of themselves in others, it is what mobilizes them to use the power they have available to them to accomplish anything.

Citizenship and the Media: “A republic, if you can keep it”

“In short, the public gets what the public wants” Justin Lewis explains as he outlines common assumptions about citizenship.  His notions on citizenship and its perilous but necessary relationship with news media equates to a skeptical view of the classical role of the news: to inform.  The concern, according to Lewis, “is that, despite the longstanding links between news and entertainment… the pursuit of the popular is somehow in contradiction with serious public affairs content.”

This concern that news media has shifted to providing the public what it wants to know rather than what it needs to know has implications for what citizenship means and how it might impact the future of news.  If citizens truly are shifting to a more entertainment based consumption and the role of news outlets also shifts to entertainment based product, it is feasible that citizenry will be re-defined to include a much smaller group of individuals.

Joke Hermes explains, in regards to citizenship, that it is “intimately connected with public opinion formation. Discussion about what is best for all of us is understood to be supported by and take place predominantly in (news) media.”  This notion, similar to Lewis’ but with, perhaps, less worry or skepticism, points to an idealistic notion that news is the medium in which important civic discussions occur between citizens.

In his discussion on polling, Hermes explains that political institutions (often including journalists) have continued to use polling “technology” despite the fact that ordinary citizens have been able to, through new internet-based platforms, be heard on the “national stage.”  This distrust, in the polis, of political methods(such as the polling methods and motivations) has led to a re-defining of citizenship.  Lance Bennet’s notion that “[t]he core of the shift is that young people are far less willing to subscribe to the notion held by earlier generations that citizenship is a matter of duty and obligation” gives way to a newer and more comprehensive definition of citizenship.

Following the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” and Franklin replied “A republic, if you can keep it.”  Citizenship is the “you” in his response.  Although the classic definition of citizenship has been equated to nation, politics, and law, it is more closely aligned, today, with information, knowledge, and involvement.  The new alignment means that news organizations have an increasingly serious role of ensuring that the opportunity exists for a new generation of citizens to inform themselves but also to make them care.  Making a generation care is much harder than simply providing a means for them to inform themselves.

More like, “Citizen LAME,” am I right?

I feel that citizenship has little to do with the future of news. Aside from keeping the public informed about the issues at hand (a very important role, but not truly vital), journalists write for a very select crowd. Namely, a crowd that cares.

The three authors seem to be extremely concerned with the rising youth not caring about the news simply because it is “important but boring.” Which, to be fair, it really is. Young people are up in arms over large events: 9/11 and the death of Osama Bin Laden showed an just how much people are invested in the world around them. Granted, these two events were separated by a decade, but how many other events really rock the common citizen’s world?

In fact, I would argue that people that will truly make a difference will search out the news on their own terms and find their own voices through discovery. Assuming that every person must actively participate or be relatively informed should not govern whether or not someone is a citizen.

These authors fail to consider, however, the role of the “interesting” news. With Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert providing the roles of watchdogs to the watchdogs, younger people are still gathering the important facts of the day that will help them participate in future political endeavors. Colbert’s recent PAC conquest shows that people are willing to stay involved, especially to an incredibly charismatic, genuine, and entertaining political personality. Whether or not he is a “true” journalist is irrelevant; he is still providing and involving the public with the tools necessary to be a “citizen.”

The future of journalism must be entertaining and interactive, but not in a way that takes away the profession of journalists. The examples from Monday’s class show that yes, people do want to be part of the news, but only with things that interest. For example, the dog riding a motorcycle was incredibly adorable, but in no way would I consider that legitimate journalism. Furthermore,  the fact that it was on the front page and was the only example we clicked on should say something about the role of the pedestrian in journalism. iReport seems like it could help in the long run, but only when truly breaking news occurs.

Citizenship

Essay on 082211

By Yanqin Lu

 

With the emergence of digital media, the implication of citizenship is no longer confined as nationality, voting rights and so on. Citizens are requiring more right of being heard and the motivation of the shift in citizenship is the rapid development of digital media, especially the Internet.

 

On the Internet, people could not only get information, but also express their opinions in kinds of platforms as soon as they have inspiration. As Hermes has mentioned in “citizenship in the age of Internet”, the public play new roles as both producer and actor in news. On the Internet, people could discuss one topic with their proponents, and also, they could debate one topic with their opponents. The Internet provides the public with several platforms that they could exchange opinions and explain what they think on the table.

 

In response to such a shift in citizenship, media organizations have to change the ways of producing news. In the new media era, users could choose what to read all by themselves. Therefore, in order to attract the public attention, media organizations should try to report with the interests of users or adopt the news source provided by users. Moreover, as users have different sources to form their opinions, media organizations could not try to influence users’ opinions effectively and what they could do is to make an expert as a moderator when users are debating with each other.

 

In a word, the public want to be more active when pursuing citizenship and media organizations should satisfy and guide such a pursuit.

Self-Actualizing Citizenship: A Model For All?

One specific type of citizen identity that Bennett discusses is Emerging Youth Experience of Self-Actualizing Citizenship (AC). The characteristics of the AC model, as described by Bennett includes: “diminished sense of government obligation — higher sense of individual purpose; voting is less meaningful than other, more personally defined acts such as consumerism, community volunteering, or transnational activism; mistrust of media and politicians is reinforced by negative mass media environment; favors loose networks of community action — often established or sustained through friendships and peer relations and thin social ties maintained by interactive information technologies.” Using this model of citizenship, there may be implications regarding the future of news.

The AC model depicts a media consumer who is more individualistic in nature. This type of individual thrives in the digital media environment, which has been “unbundled” and offers readers the option to actively select the topics they wish to consume. Combining this nature with a predisposition toward personally meaningful actions and a distrust of the media could create a type of media consumer who prefers to generate their own news

In our class discussions on news media innovations and the development of social capital, the concept of consumer-generated news was a topic that prompted some debate. It seems that Bennett’s AC model that is more prevalent among today’s youth would align with the production of consumer-generated news. If the youth of today prefer to be more individualistic in their news consumption, then the news of the future may have a more consumer-generated approach. Additionally, this philosophy would align more with Dewey’s outlook on journalism, which involves audience participation in news.

While I feel this outlook may provide an idealistic view of journalism in the future, I can’t argue that there are elements of the AC model that apply to my news consumption. Specifically, there is an element of mistrust of some media and politicians that leads to selective news consumption patterns in my everyday life. For example, I read the New York Times online, and go to CNN.com and MSNBC.com for my everyday news. I visit these sites not because I feel they agree with my political views, but because other news sources such as Fox News are so counter-intuitive to my views that I can’t go to their sites. Where I may differ from the AC model is that while my citizen identity may influence how I consume the news, it doesn’t motivate me to produce my own news, through a consumer-driven program such as CNN’s iReport.

These shifts in citizen identity may result in a more fractured media environment than that which currently exists today, which would impact the future of news. What will be interesting to see is whether it moves the model of news more toward Dewey’s outlook or Lippmann. Perhaps the reality will lie somewhere in the middle.

 

 

 

Community

As the media rapidly transforms in the digital world, it is interesting to consider what role mainstream news will play in nurturing and enhancing community.

It would seem in many ways that the networked media environment has served to bring people together even more, not only through online mediums but in actual real time.

It would seem that although the bowling communities that Putnam suggests may have fallen to the wayside and been replaced by the virtual interconnectedness of the net, that things may still make a full circle. By this, I mean that platforms such as Twitter and Facebook while serving to form more interconnected then ever digitally, that effect also will continue to enhance social interaction in reality, be it bringing old friends together that may have lost touch or allowing for the ability to find community gatherings, a special interest group or even a date by way of the social networking platform.

In the mainstream news world, innovations such as Twitter now enhance community both virtually and in reality, as reporters can not only quickly offer up-to-the-minute news information tweets, but also communicate about that news information on a constant basis with the community they serve. By sharing through Twitter, Facebook or even linking YouTube links through the previous two platforms, news media members can offer their communities quick hits abut community happenings as they are happening not just before and after… enticing the community members to come out and participate rather than just plan for it or hear about it after it has happened. In this way, the news media offers a little bit of what both Dewey and Lippman acting a both an authority of the news but also as a teacher, interacting and helping to build the community.

In terms of local media innovations, I have found that personal blogs created by local reporters have provided a platform where citizens can feel comfortable to discuss and interact with reporters. Perhaps it the colloquial design of blogs that takes the average news reporter from “buttoned up,” serious news reporting to an everyday style of discussion and opining, but this does seem to lend to more interactive discussions between the reporter and the community. In the sports reporting world, many of my own colleagues have found their work related blogs to allow them to talk more intimately with the community about  the sports topics that they are passionate about and often better represent the broader community rather than the tight scope assigned by their editors in the actual hard copy of heir paper. In turn, blog readers can read about more community oriented topics and respond and interact accordingly.

Interconnectedness: Not Necessarily Destroying the Industry

I see mainstream news as nurturing and enhancing social capital by giving a forum in which readers can interact on both local and national levels.

I often point to the HeraldTimesOnline as an exemplary way in which a local paper can run and still generate revenue.  The site runs by a subscription in which one can buy the paper in physical form, in online-only form, or both.  What really makes it work, though, is that Internet users are paying to be able to access the site, meaning that they have to be vested in the ways they interact.  They need a username to be able to comment on the site.

Readers can have open-forum discussions about the news articles and community happenings without having to be physically present.  This may very well be the way that people who care will read about city council meetings and talk about them.  In this way, it’s possible that the Internet could help save the smaller, less popular parts of the paper while encouraging civic engagement.

Likewise, people can connect over forums on a national level.  I think that the lack of need to register and the increasing anonymity of wider forums makes it more difficult to share productive ideas (what with Internet “trolling” and people who comment just to advertise their own sites/blogs), but it does give one way for a large audience to share experiences.  Especially with huge, breaking news (such the Joplin tornado), people can connect to foster comfort or even find ways to help.

User-generated content is another way in which mainstream news enhances community.  With the ability to post pictures and story ideas, readers connect more personally to what they see in the media:  there is less of a barrier between the “elite” media and the “regular folk.”  Even better, the interconnectedness gives a way for the readers to help solve questions.  Think about the picture of the kissing couple in the Vancouver riots.  That was a user-generated story that broke and went viral.

It was a photo that, for a short time, came to symbolize hedonism in a time of chaos.  As the days went on, readers were able to track down the couple and the actual story was pieced together:  the woman was injured and her boyfriend was comforting her before helping her.  It instead came to take on a different meaning:  heroism in conflict.  Without the web, this might have all still happened—it just would have taken a lot longer.

I’m sure that all happened; Facebook told me it did

The social climate is evolving due to the growing presence of online interconnections. People are no longer bound by distance and terrain in order to interact with one another. For example, the recent Arab Spring revolutions were facilitated largely through Facebook, which eventually found its way to the U.S. via Twitter. Intercontinental relationships were strengthened an developed solely because of these new social mediums. The job of the journalist is to provide the people with the tools necessary for public discourse and to facilitate information to the masses. These social sites, however, add a very unique role to the everyday person, essentially involving them with the story directly. People are the start of a story. They can provide instant emotion and basic details. At the end of the day, journalism is about telling a story. These testimonials can greatly add depth and personality to a story. In terms of journalism, these networks turn the spectator into a participant; the journalist’s role is to fashion and report these accounts into an official transcript.

The social capital principle truly answers the “who cares?” question. Clearly, people are caring about each other and the lives of others if the social network spans beyond those that they would normally talk to. Facebook is the perfect example of expanding the international concepts of a community. People are now able to spread reports, photos and life stories instantly. Furthermore, this creates a completely different way to interact with a person’s life. There is almost too much information about your neighbors, and they are reduced to a simple avatar.

The weaknesses of social media, however, stem from the commentary-style nature of multiple users. At some point, the validity of a user becomes compromised, especially when the user contributes nothing new or valuable to the discourse. There’s a large difference between professionalism and a person’s opinion. Journalists have to and do retain control over the news they distribute, adding a strong sense of truth to what they write.  They are the channel through which news is processed, packaged and distributed.

Personal contact is extremely important for it should keep a community strong. Instead of reducing a person to a picture, personal interaction truly invests a person into something real. Knowing, seeing, feeling, and interacting with someone who is involved develops a much stronger connection than a collection of words and photos ever could. Technology is able to spread that contact to a vast amount of diverse people. This should not govern a local communities, but inform them quicker.

 

From One Community to Another

Putnam states that, “social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” Traditional news media such as newspapers or television connected individuals on a local or regional level by providing news that pertained to their specific geographic location, thus facilitating the creation of social networks within a local community.

One primary feature of the Internet is that it assists in disseminating information across geographic boundaries through various channels (e.g., online news content, blogs, message boards, and social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook). Although this moves the sharing of information outside of the local community, it still facilities the building of communities; however, they reside in a digital environment.

Digital communities are where mainstream news is contributing to developing a new type of community. Perhaps instead of connecting individuals in local area by providing news that pertains only to their local interests, the role of the mainstream news is now to connect individuals and form global communities through shared interests in particular topics. This new role has it positives and negatives when addressing the formation of community.

One positive is that in a digital media environment, as news organizations can now connect individuals across geographic boundaries they can increase their network of influence. Although increased network size is a positive aspect, the fact that it doesn’t reside in one specific area limits the network’s impact in their local environment. This is illustrated by one particular form of news media technology that supports community, which are message boards.

There have been numerous academic studies on the subject of community formation on message boards (e.g., Burnett, 2009; Cobb, Graham, Abrams, 2010; Cousineau, Rancourt, & Green, 2006). For example, message boards centered on health care issues have been found to support a large and highly connected community within a digital environment. These individuals turn to each other, not only for information, but also for support. They’re looking for other individuals experiencing the same things they are. The question then becomes how do you take a community that exists in a digital environment and connect it to a local community so that it has an impact on a local level?

Drawing from the level of commitment found on message boards, maybe local news organizations could increase their interactivity on message boards, Twitter feeds, or Facebook pages. Combining the features of geographic reach, with local news information pertaining to a community could facilitate an increase in the formation of community on both a digital and local level.

Different role-playings in different places

Networked media help make community a better place

It is known to all that one of the most important principles of newsworthy is the proximity. Especially local newspapers should lay much emphasis on local communities in order to catch people’s attentions. So, community is both the sources and audiences of media.

In my opinion, the biggest difference between media and networked media is the internet. In comparison to non-wired community, more people are known and participating, which facilitates discussion and mobilization around local issues. And about the community, if we see it at a higher level, the whole state and country could also be referred to as a community. And whatever it is a small or big community, the networked mainstream news media play the same positive role in all of them.

In developed countries like America, the work networked media do is to enable almost all the people to supervise the government in time and to provide a more convenient and faster platform for more people to speak out ideas to make their community a better place. While, the positive function seems to reduce its own power in my own country, China. As I mentioned lots of times already, unlike America, where freely speech of media is under the protection under the First Amendment, Chinese traditional media, including print, TV and radio are all under strict sensor of government till now. Therefore network mainstream news media may have relatively a little more freedom to speak, but still cannot escape the fate under control. Please do not be confused, last time I said it is the internet, not the network news media, which gives people more rights to speak.

As to the innovation part, the idea to combine the informatics and journalism to better serve the people and communities from the Nieman’s report is excellent. For example, citizens would complain about flooding in their neighborhood on local media websites. Diligent text mining of that public comment could show who and where it is coming from and whether comments and frustration have increased over time. By text-mining public officials’ comments, public documents, and news articles, a comparison could show whether and how well the city responded to the neighborhood’s concerns—and it could also discover the public officials’ excuses. Of course, it won’t work in China as well.