One of the most important aspects of the whole TBNYU fiasco coverage was that we were able to connect with students all over campus and collect their ideas and questions almost immediately. With our embedded reporter, Charlie Eisenhood, live-blogging from the inside, students and other interested parties could ask him questions, which he could then directly answer within 5 minutes. The wall between journalist and audience had been broken down. The story was everyone’s.
What implications does user generated content have for journalism? Indeed the wall has broken down, but this perhaps does not bode well for institutions whose content is based upon a hierarchy of deciding what information the public must consume. User generated content (UGC) has democratized the way information is disseminated, dethroning journalists up on high and revolutionizing the way articles are written. Instead of collecting information and then constructing an article to be released the next day, this form of live-blogging using commenters to spur conversation allows the information to be spread almost as quickly as it occurs. It could mean that some of the information isn’t always right, as immediacy is often valued over fact-checking. But it also means that our desire to be satiated instantaneously can be granted.
Twitter also served an integral role in drumming up UGC. NYU Local used its Twitter feed to Tweet information about the protest as it was happening, and our Twitter followers could use the @ feature to ask questions, give tips or comment on something we’d written. Because everything was confined to simply 140 characters, the answer and replies were both short and sweet, leaving room for nothing but the simple facts.
In the future, UGC will most likely drive many journalistic practices. We’ve already seen it in the comments section of online newspapers, and I think, eventually, that wall between journalist and audience will be deconstructed to an unrecognizable point.
Possibly Relevant Posts:
- Using New Media to Cover Journalistic Events (1) | Jessica
- Print is Dying, So How Can We Save Journalism? (4) | Jessica
- Five Uses of Social Media Covering The Pirate Bay Trial (0) | Dylan
3 Comments
as a journalist, I’m sure you are also wondering: what does this mean for the future of professional journalism? if the stories themselves become centered around comments, conversations and the cumulation of immediate communication, will people only get paid for media administration, organization and entrepreneurship? what will happen to the practice of reporting or storytelling? If the “wall between journalist and audience will be deconstructed to an unrecognizable point,” who will be consumer and who will be producer? or will this cause a real shift in our capitalist… paradigm, in the economy of information?
This instant, user generated content makes me think of NateG’s current post about stalker gawker. However with reporting that is in anyway mroe relevant than whats going on with celebrities, it is interesting to ponder how these short little UGC snippets of “just the facts” will skew their content.
I think you should be more explicit about your discussion of journalism vs. reporting. What’s so interesting about this travelogue and about your TBNYU experience is that you have been doing new media *reporting* – actual *news making* and not just opinion making and contextualizing of news reported elsewhere. This was due to the fact this bit of news was in your back yard and could be reported by you personally.
How is that different from other types of blogging? Are there different journalistic ethics (?) involved in being the one reporting the story? How was your experience different being put in that position?