Most have you have probably already seen this, as I realize that four months is an eternity in the world of converged media, but earlier this year CNN launched their iReport.com site. It's the journalistic equivalent of YouTube, where users can upload their own clips and articles about anything they want to -- provided that, in theory, it's journalistically sound.
MediaWeek ran an interesting article in February about the launch of the site. The article notes that iReports have become increasingly popular, and reminds readers that coverage of recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings and last year's wildfires in California came largely from user-generated video sent to newsrooms.
A particularly interesting feature of the site is the navigation bar including categories of iReports: latest, highest rated, most viewed, most shared, on CNN, and newsiest. Not only do users who upload news items have their work in the online community for feedback, but CNN.com actually uses some articles on their site and tags the ones that have been lifted from iReport.
iReport's "About" page starts off with an important caveat: "The views and content on this site are solely those of the iReport.com contributors. CNN makes no guarantees about the content or the coverage on iReport.com!" Notably, none of the content on the site is pre-screened. Everything is published until fellow users flag questionable content for review.
Articles under the "Highest Rated" tab generally do have genuine news content, with the top story being a photo gallery covering the Olympic torch protests. But then you also get stories like this one under the "Most Viewed" tab, about a husband's (kind of mean) April Fools joke on his wife.
User-generated content sites always have a range of uploaded content, from the interesting and germane to the downright out there. But what happens when you call all of those uploads news?
Have any of you submitted user-generated news content to this or another Web site? What do you think about this means of engaging readership, making them authors as well as users? There are obvious ramifications for what it means to be a journalist -- iReport's only standard is that users be at least 13 years old to upload content on the site. (Which makes me feel just great about that expensive diploma I'll be getting in a month.)
It seems to me that iReport may have a useful purpose for niche news -- it is a good place to see what the major networks aren't covering. Much like YouTube, where users often go to find videos that are not accessible elsewhere, iReport can be a good source for off-the-beaten-path news coverage. And this, seemingly is what CNN is capitalizing on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Although citizen journalism and user-generated content have become immensely popular recently, I would like to believe that real journalists, the ones with journalism degrees, will never become obsolete. Sure, a Web site can use tools like iReport to get more readers to interact with the medium; however, simply submitting a news-related item does not make one a journalist. What makes a journalist is not simply reporting; it is also the ability to convey a message through the most effective structure and method possibly. Add interviewing skills, knowledge of the code of ethics, and journalistic integrity and you exclude almost all of those who never studied journalism but decided to blog or be a cyberwriter.
As for this phenomenon of user-generated--well, how should I put it--STUFF that seems to be on every news Web site and clog up cyberspace, it is mostly just fluff. Look at YouTube, for example. While it may be wildly entertaining at times, watching YouTube has no real educational or informative value. It bothers me that more and more Web sites are using similar media to attract new and additional viewers. I imagine a future not too distant when kids instead of reading a newspaper or book watch a YouTube clip. Oh, hold on, it is already happening!
YouTube and most user-generated content, in my opinion, is leading to the dumbification of America. Why bother reading when you can click a button and get someone to read content for you? Studies have shown (I cannot cite them since I do not remember where I read about it, but I imagine this is common knowledge) that watching something, like a video clip, requires much less brain activity than reading.
With iReport, YouTube et al, we are going to have a nation full of kids who just cannot bother to turn a page in a book because it is not as instantly gratifying or interesting as watching some video clip. And that to me is just as scary as sad.
Not only that: This scenario is the only one I can imagine in which the journalist, the one with a degree, will find him or herself jobless.
Post a Comment