Firstly thank you to “damocles” for furnishing me with the piece written by Rob Shipley of the JEP, or the "FILTHY RAG" as it is better known in certain circles.
For my overseas readers/viewers Rob Shipley is the Deputy Editor of our ONLY “News”paper.
I would like my readers/viewers to compare the 2 items below. One is a piece written by Rob Shipley and published in our ONLY “news”paper, sometime last week I think, I’m not sure as I refuse to buy a copy of it but I think it was in Saturdays edition.
The other is part of some e-mail correspondence I have had with another Journalist, who incidentally, I am no friend of, nor him me. However it may just be that we have some common ground.
My personal opinion is that the Rob Shipley piece comes across as a desperate man trying to hang on to the Monopoly of printed “news” and believes that the only “news” the plebs should be privy to, here in Jersey, is that which himself, Chris Bright, Matthew Price, Denzil Dudley, and the bunch at Channel Television want to give us and believes he/they ("accredited" media) are the only ones qualified to do so.
On the other hand the (edited) e-mail from the (local) “Journalist” comes across as somebody with a true understanding of “Journalism”, who believes the game should be open to all players and is not in fear of news, opinions and views being shared by mere mortals.
I have stressed many times I am not a “trained” Journalist, I am merely a father of 2 children trying to protect them from our government. I am not Blogging willingly, but I have been forced into Blogging, not only by our Government but by the “accredited” local Media.
If I believed the “accredited” local Media were informing the public without fear or favour, were not burying NEWS stories and pleas for help and letters from alleged abuse victims and were impartial and not a mouthpiece for our government then there would really be no need for my attempt at “Citizens Media” and, believe it or not, it is something I begrudge doing but have no choice.
Citizens Media is here and it is here to stay, get used to it Shipley, you helped create it/us.
The Shipley Piece
RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS
THE proposal that the States should
be televised live on the internet
should remind us that, as time
marches on, the media of mass communication
evolve.
A certain amount of hoo-hah over
who should be allowed to video
Scrutiny panel hearings also reminds
us that a new breed of media
person is abroad – or would like to
be abroad.
Citizen journalists, as they call
themselves, believe that they should
share the same rights of access as
more traditional media such as
newspaper reporters and TV or
radio broadcasters.
In itself that sounds like a reasonable
idea and a potential enhancement
of democracy.
The new kids on the block, however,
must realise that if they want
privileges they must play by the
rules – and that involves signing up
to codes of conduct and refraining
from defaming everyone who is
framed in the viewfinder or
splashed all over a blog.
Until that sort of agreement can
be negotiated and finalised, citizen
journalists are about as welcome as
citizen brain surgeons, citizen airline
pilots or, indeed, citizen bricklayers.
I really must ask Mr Shipley, if you were drowning at sea and a "citizen" held out his hand to save you would you say "no thanks you're a citizen life saver and not a trained life saver" similarly from a burning building, would you say "you are a citizen rescuer not a trained fire rescuer". Because people haven't been trained in Journalism doesn't mean they can't report news. But hey what do I know eh?
The (edited) e-mail from the (local) "Journalist"
Personally, I believe that the whole thing revolves around the definition of "journalism," or "journalistic." It used to be purely printed words on a page. Then along came Mr. Marconi and later Mr. Logie-Baird and the term had to expand to include the "new" media of radio and television.
People tend to look for "models" based on past successful practices, which means things are always backward-looking, slow to change and radical change is very difficult to achieve.
It took someone with the force of personality of Lord Reith to get radio taken seriously in Great Britain. When it was, finally, taken seriously, the journalistic practices adopted were those of the established Fleet Street broadsheets. When television came along, a great many of the, by then, well-established journalistic practices of radio were transferred over to the new visual medium. The past constantly and consistently informs the present.
The same is true for the Internet. The great temptation at the moment is to attempt to transfer the established practices of broadcast radio and television to the Web.
Where this falls flat on its face is that such thinking fails to address the communications revolution brought about by the Internet and to grasp the fact that, with the Web, we're no longer talking about "trained," "professional" practitioners, but about access to publishing facts, views and opinion which is open to anyone with a computer and a connection to the Internet.
Until recently, journalism was a passive activity, where readers, or listeners, or viewers have no choice but to accept what the "professionals" put before them. Thanks to the Web, journalism has become a massively active participatory activity.
Personally, I welcome this, but my welcome is not unconditional. I do staunchly believe that no matter what the medium and no matter who the journalist, certain basic principles must govern journalistic activities: e.g. the laws of defamation; contempt of court; the presumption of innocence, a respect for an individual's privacy etc.
But, whether we like, or agree with what someone publishes on the Internet is immaterial compared to the fact that, within the constraints of the law and accepted conventions, they have a right to publish it; and now they have the means to do so.
If journalism is defined as "reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news." and if "news" is defined as " a report of recent events." ( The true definition of the two terms can be argued ad nauseam, but these two should be acceptable to anyone and everyone; others tend to be too narrow and limiting.) then, without doubt, the activities of "Citizen Journalists" are, incontrovertibly journalistic.
The best definition of "Citizen Journalism" I have come across is:
"When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another."
And therein lies the real problem - the lack of understanding that, outside the Law of the Land, Citizen Journalism, being open to all and still developing, cannot be equated to the more traditional media. However, that does not make Citizen Journalism any less valid. It simply makes it different and new, just as radio was different from print and television different from radio.
Personally I believe that in seeking to limit, or restrict any legitimate journalistic activity -and it can be argued very strongly that internet activity which seeks to inform others about current events is journalism - any authority, or body is simply failing to understand and accommodate what is happening in the world in which they live and is in real danger of denying freedom of expression within the law.
"Political leanings," or "agendas" have nothing to do with it. Just look at the obvious political leanings of the UK dailies. People tend to buy and read the ones which agree with their view of the world, but others, as they say, are available. And that's a crucial point: All views should be available and it should be up to the consumer to decide to which they wish to give their time and attention. But if all views are to be available, it is necessary - even vital - for those who wish to publish their views to be given equal access to information - especially to the workings of government.
There has to be a level playing-field for everyone engaged in journalistic activity. Certainly, the playing-field is big enough to accommodate anyone and everyone who wishes to take part.
My apologies for the length of this reply, but I do believe profoundly that these issues are central to a free society and democracy, as well as to the essential nature of journalism and, by definition, journalists. I am proud to be a trained and experienced journalist, but I am not so blinkered as to believe for an instant that such as I and my colleagues should be the only ones allowed to report on, or inform people about what is going on.
The task is to get the "powers that be" to understand and agree to this.
Yours faithfully",
The reason it has been edited is to give the "Journalist" anonymity for obvious reasons. I have permission to publish it but not under the author's name.
Rob Shipley is more than welcome to leave a comment on here explaining, in a little more depth, his understanding of "Journalism". But as I have, on a number of occassions,by e-mail asked him to give me his idea of "Journalism" he never has, so I'll not be holding my breath!
