“Citizen journalism” is a clunky term that manages to be as open to interpretation as it is controversial. I tend to think of it this way:

Any effort by people who are not trained or employed as professional journalists to publish news or information based on original observation, research, inquiry, analysis or investigation.

Here’s what that can mean, more specifically…

CitJ can conceivably include anything from notes and quotes from a public meeting, to neighborhood happenings and trends, to an original analysis of a piece of proposed legislation, to a public discussion about conditions at local parks, to music and restaurant reviews, to podcast interviews with community leaders and characters, and much more.

…Yes, I know that’s very broad. But consider the diversity of journalistic (or tangentially journalistic) content typically offered by mainstream news outlets — this isn’t really that different.

Key concept: In journalism, the “ism” is more important than the “ist.” Journalism is a collection of practices that can be done by anyone — not just by a select few anointed by certain types of employers or degrees.

Anyone can commit an act of journalism. Remember: In the U.S. at least, journalists are not licensed by the state — for good reason. Journalists don’t merely serve or represent the public. They are part of the public.

IS IT ANY GOOD?

The work of citizen journalists often looks quite different from the kind of journalism you’d find in a daily paper. It tends to be more personal, often written in the first person. It generally doesn’t attempt to be comprehensive.

Quality is inconsistent. It may or may not attempt to be fair. Fact-checking and editorial oversight may be less than what you’d find in a newspaper — or it may be better, depending on the citizen journalist and the paper being compared. CitJ often mixes opinion with reporting.

Media pros often deride or dismiss citizen journalism as useless or even dangerous. Some — but not all — of those complaints have merit and are worth considering.

That said, in order to form your own opinion of citizen journalism it’s important to engage directly with it rather than simply ascribe to someone else’s opinion. The only way you’ll spot potential value is to keep an open mind, and keep your eyes open too.

WHO ARE CITIZEN JOURNALISTS?

Anyone can be a citizen journalist — seniors, students, PhD’s, homemakers, the homeless, immigrants, nuns, you name it.

The label “citizen journalist” is controversial, so many people who are doing citizen journalism as I described it don’t call themselves citizen journalists. Often they consider themselves simply bloggers, discussion leaders and participants, or vocal community members.

A lot of citizen journalism happens on sites and forums where citizen journalism is not the main focus. It just crops up as warranted. Therefore, any venue might occasionally offer some citizen journalism.

In 2007, J-Lab conducted a survey of sites that focus on hyperlocal citizen media/journalism. Their report indicates definite business potential: “Sites are set up as businesses, as non-profits or as ad hoc citizen ventures. In our survey, 139 respondents split evenly: Half described their sites as for-profit operations, and half non-profit. Among the profit-seekers are entrepreneurs inventing new kinds of media companies to tap user-generated news and information and to build revenue models based on local shopping, local search and online advertising.”

More commonly, however, people who commit acts of citizen journalism do so for free, simply because they want to. In my experience they’re generally passionate, curious people who enjoy conversation.

WHERE CAN YOU FIND CITJ?

Everywhere. I’m not kidding. Here’s a 2007 map Adam Glenn and I helped build for the Knight Citizen News Network that lists nearly 500 citizen journalism efforts in the US alone — and there are many more around the world.

In addition, citizen journalists can focus on issues, industries, or other non-geographic territory.

While many citizen journalists practice their craft on their own sites or podcasts, others opt to contribute content to community sites — including ones that are hosted and supported by news organizations. Also, news organizations are increasingly soliciting stories, photos, and other news-related content from their audiences.

DOES CITJ MATTER?

That depends. For hyperlocal community news, yes, citizen journalists are becoming a major force in many places — especially in places that the mainstream media tend to overlook.

For other types of news and analysis, how much a citizen journalist (or citJ venue) matters depends on the people involved — especially their personal level of dedication, expertise, and sense of ethics and responsibility. It’s a really mixed bag.

Happenstance also comes into play. A person on the spot of a major news event who’s got a cell phone camera and a Flickr account can make history.

…That’s a very basic introduction to the field, from one person’s perspective. Please tell me what you think and what you’d add or change, below.

Recently Kellie O’Sullivan, a third-year communication student studying at the University of Newcastle in Australia, asked me some questions about citizen journalism for a class assignment. I get questions like this a lot, so she said it was fine if I answered her in a blog post.

The way she framed her questions made me wonder: Why are folks from news organizations and journalism/communication schools still so hung up on building fences to divide amateur from professional journalism? Does this reflect insecurity about their own status/worth, or simply a lack of understanding of how much these endeavors mostly overlap and complement each other?

Seems to me that we’d all gain more by focusing on the practice of reporting and journalism (especially being transparent and open to discussion, correction, and expansion of news and information). In my opinion, doing journalism is more important than what kind of journalist you consider yourself to be, or how others label you.

With that caveat, here’s what she asked, and how I answered…

1. Do you think that citizen journalists such as Matt Drudge and Perez Hilton put pressure on professional journalists to be more accurate and credible in their reporting?

I don’t follow either Matt Drudge or Perez Hilton, so I can’t really speak to those two examples from experience. And I don’t know that I would call them “citizen journalists” — as far as I know, they’re both entrepreneurial news/information providers, not unpaid amateurs.

I also know they’re both very popular and have developed large, devoted communities online. From what I hear, they interact with their community members regularly and personally. That probably contributes to their popularity.

Reporters who are inclined toward viewing other media players who become popular in the communities that they would like to reach — and who are inclined toward a scarcity mindset of community (“If you get more attention, that means I’ll get less!”) — may indeed view Drudge and Hilton primarily as competition and feel pressure from that.

Personally, I think it’s more constructive to view nearly anyone else in media as a potential ally or collaborator, and look for ways to approach them and their communities that will benefit everyone.

Also, watch what they do and learn from them. If you want the results they get, then look for constructive ways to emulate or adapt how they work.

2. Daily blogger and citizen journalist Matthew Hatton thinks that citizen journalism and professional journalism could work together. Do you believe this is something which could happen?

I not only think this kind of cooperation could happen — it should and does happen, every day, in all kinds of venues.

Sometimes it happens through controlled, hierarchical programs like American Public Media’s Public Insight Network. Sometimes it’s formal or informal crowdsourcing. Sometimes it happens through blogs, or comments to news stories, or social media. It’s more about sharing information than sharing bylines.

3. In 2007 you wrote: “In journalism, the ‘ism’ is more important than the ‘ist.’ ” Therefore, do you believe the general public are simply more interested in news stories, and not necessarily the author of the stories?

Not quite. In my experience people are interested in news, information, perspectives, and context — and most of all, relevance. I also think many people (perhaps most) prefer to choose their own sources for these things, not just blindly turn to a mainstream news outlet as the last or best word on anything. And I also find that the kind of information people want is much broader than traditional packaged “news stories.”

This is why most people rely heavily on people they know and trust to find news and information — both original information and pointers to news and information published online and elsewhere. That’s a big reason why social media has become so popular.

People do care about where and who their information comes from. Who authored or published a news story can be part of that, but it’s definitely not the whole picture.

This is why the traditional practice of mainstream professional journalists hiding their personal views, opinions, or interests can actually undermine credibility, not promote it. Transparency has become more desirable and useful than a veneer of objectivity fostered by concealment.

4. Do you consider yourself a citizen journalist or a professional journalist? Why?

Neither. Both. It doesn’t matter to me. It may matter to other people, but that’s up to them and they’re free to label me and my work as they will.

I do journalism, among many other things. That’s how I think of it. That makes it much easier to get the job done.

Thanks for your questions, Kellie

However, many news organizations still could take a lesson from the second item on HuffPost‘s list:

“2. Do research and include links to back it up. Whether you are referencing a quote, statistic, or specific event, you should include a link that supports your statement. If you’re not sure, it’s better to lean on the cautious side. More links enhance the piece and let readers know where you’re coming from.”

It amazes me how often I still see mainstream news stories which completely lack links, or which ghettoize links in a box in a sidebar or at the bottom of the story…

In online media, links enhance credibility and invite engagement. Yet many (perhaps most) major news organizations (including the Associated Press, Wall St. Journal, and USA Today) still include few or no outbound links to sources or context from their stories.

I know from speaking to many, many journalists that in some news organizations, outdated print- or broadcast-focused content management systems make it cumbersome for reporters to add links to stories. In other cases, reporters either don’t know how to add links, or don’t bother to do so. And in a few cases, editors still actively discourage reporters from adding links to stories due to mistaken ideas about what drives online traffic and demonstrates value to readers.

Look at this from the perspective of the community you’re trying to engage online: Dead ends are bad news on the internet. A story without source or context links (especially obvious ones) may appear suspect, as if the news org hopes to discourage independent followup. Yes, it’s a good idea to link to your own related stories — but if you only link to your own news from your own news, you risk looking like an echo chamber. The more value you offer (which includes useful external links), the more likely it is that your online news will attract repeat traffic, inbound links, and personal referrals.

Of course, links are not everything. It’s true that original research (including interviewing) still matters in journalism. It’s also true that not every fact reported has an online link for reference. That said, much (perhaps most) of the information and context that journalists gather and assemble into most stories does indeed have some sort of primary online reference.

Avoiding those links implies hubris (the impression that the news organization is pretending to be the original source/gatherer of all the information presented), laziness (the news org couldn’t be bothered to link), or cluelessness (the news org doesn’t recognize the value of links).

Also, when linking to sources of context, quality counts. I’d have preferred it if HuffPost had stated a preference for links to primary sources, and qualification for any link that is not a primary source. But still — when soliciting news and reporting from amateur journalists, this list is an adequate starting point.

(NOTE: I originally published another version of this article in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)

According to the Colorado Daily:

“[The runner] agreed Thursday to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, a petty offense. She agreed to undergo six months of unsupervised probation, eight hours of community service and pay $27 in court fees. She will not be required to register as a sex offender, and her record will be cleared if she doesn’t commit any crimes for at least six months.”

Also, Colorado Daily reported that according to prosecutor David Chavel:

“The agreement with [this defendant] would likely represent the same offer extended to all of the accused Halloween streakers. However, he said it would be ‘up to each individual’ to accept such an offer.”

“All of the cases are being handled separately, Chavel said, because some of the runners have attorneys and others do not. He said the remaining cases involving the naked runners are in negotiations with the Boulder District Attorney’s Office.”

What got me, though, was this statement from the Boulder Police Department quoted at the end of the Colorado Daily story. (Note: This statement does not appear to be on the Boulder Police Dept. web site, I’ll request a copy.)

“The decision was made by the District Attorney’s Office, which consulted with the department. Chief Mark Beckner believes this is an appropriate disposition. As for future violations, Boulder officers will continue to issue citations or make arrests based on the law as it is written. It is — and will remain — the province of the District Attorney’s Office to determine whether other charges are possible.”

…Correct me if I’m wrong, but this statement appears to mean that the Boulder cops intend to continue issuing indecent exposure citations to streakers — despite the fact that the DA’s office does not appear to consider that charge appropriate. Which means the cops can (and probably will) continue to bully and intimidate citizens through inappropriate charges — and leave it up to the DA and the courts to spend our resources to bring those charges back to reality.

There’s a much deeper issue at stake here beyond these cases, and it’s why I keep revisiting this story: Is this the kind of law enforcement we want to allow in Boulder?…

Is it really OK for our public servants to use their authority in this way?

Face it: This is Boulder. People WILL keep streaking here. It’s part of the local culture of celebration — and many (perhaps most) Boulderites consider it harmless fun. So this issue WILL come up again.

…I’m not saying that we need to legalize streaking (celebratory or otherwise). People who streak in Boulder are taking a risk by breaking the law. But I do think that when enforcing the law, our police should recognize the difference between an offbeat celebration and a sexual assault. As I wrote earlier, if the cops were truly concerned about public safety at Naked Pumpkin Run, they could have cited runners for disorderly conduct — a charge the DA’s office evidently finds appropriate.

If our community does not find current police policy for busting streakers acceptable, then what can we do to change it? Specifically, what pressure could citizens or city council exert to curb cops’ ability to misuse the law as a tool of intimidation? Or could/should we lobby for changes to the current state sex offender registration law that would prevent this kind of absurdity?

Thoughts? What kinds of action might make sense?

I’ll continue to follow up on this case as my time allows. I expect that all of these cases will be plea bargained to disorderly conduct or a similar charge, or else dismissed. But we’ll see what actually happens.

To a layperson like me, this arraignment hearing was remarkably short and opaque. But I did get more info from a defense attorney and clerk from the District Attorney’s office. Here’s where things are at with this case, so far as I understand…

Six of the 12 ticketed runners are represented by Boulder defense attorney Philip Clark. It’s unclear yet whether the other six runners arraigned today have legal counsel. However, a representative of the DA’s office is meeting with each of them today, ostensibly to discuss plea bargain options. Those discussions are private, and Clark said a public announcement in court on this case today was extremely unlikely.

Clark told me that he is trying to arrange a plea bargain for his clients, since “We believe that the indecent exposure charge is inappropriate.”

…Which is exactly the point. As I reported earlier, in Colorado an indecent exposure conviction means mandatory sex offender registration. This can seriously and perhaps permanently wreck people’s lives, careers, and finances — which seems a disproportionate punishment for people who participated in a longstanding and fun (although unofficial) annual event that involved nonsexual public nudity.

I attended the 2008 Naked Pumpkin Run as a bystander, and I witnessed the runners being ticketed by cops. Statements by Boulder police chief Mark Beckner reported in the Daily Camera indicated the police intended to use this event to posture:

“We wanted to do something before (the event) got out of hand,” said Police Chief Mark Beckner. “This was a good opportunity to enforce the law.”

As I reported earlier, the Boulder police could have issued citations for disorderly conduct. This would have been an option to “enforce the law” and publicly posture without causing disproportionate harm.

HOW TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS CASE

Before I left the courthouse, I spoke to a clerk for the Boulder County DA’s office, and she gave me guidance on how to follow up on this. She said that Deputy DA David Cheval is handling these cases for the DA’s office. Here are his duties in this capacity. Apparently concerned citizens are welcome to contact Cheval on this case — but Deputy DAs have heavy workload, and may not have time to respond to citizen requests.

Boulder County District Attorney: 303-441-3700, e-mail contact form

The clerk suggested that a more efficient way to gather information on the progress of this case would be to connect with a victim advocate in the DA’s office. Carolyn French is the director of victim services for the DA’s office. I’ll be following up with her.

I’ll post more when I learn more.

If you are involved with this case or have further information or context, please post in the comments below. Please state your name or connection to the case, or your source of information — with links, if possible.

The growing number of citizen journalists (of various flavors) obviously are willing to do at least some of this work — but they don’t always know how to find what they’re seeking, or have sufficient context to even know what might be worth pursuing beyond the narrative line chosen for a packaged news story. Also, lots of people who have no desire to be citizen journalists still occasionally get interested enough in some news stories to want to check them out further first-hand. They just need encouragement, and some help getting started.

Therefore, it helps to consider that news doesn’t always have to be a finished story. In some cases, or for some people, a launching point might be even more intriguing, useful, and engaging. Here’s one option for doing that…

For several years, one of my steady freelance gigs has been writing for the Society of Environmental Journalists’ Tipsheet — a biweekly e-mail newsletter that gets distributed to thousands of journalists and is also archived online. Tipsheet presents ahead-of-the-curve or under-the-radar environmental journalism leads with background, sources, resources, and angles to consider.

One of this publication’s strengths is that we include specific links and contacts. We don’t make Tipsheet readers hunt around for, say, the correct government scientist, or the correct report document, to begin their research or independent verification. We list names, e-mail, and phone numbers (when they’re already publicly available, or with permission). We link to specific Web pages and files. We offer access to a diverse array of sources. We recommend discussion forums and provide details on upcoming meetings or events. We also link to existing coverage and commentary that illustrates interesting approaches or provides unique insight.

This approach goes far beyond the “what you can do” toolboxes. Already included with many news stories. It’s about helping people find and define their own stories. Here, engagement is the main event — not an afterthought. It’s about storyfinding, not just storytelling.

To see how this works, check out a couple of recent SEJ Tipsheet articles: Supreme Court Case Affects Nearly 550 Power Plants and Eco-Packaging for Wine: Bottles and Beyond

In short: Even though SEJ Tipsheet is intended for an audience that knows how to find this stuff (professional journalists), we give them a significant head start by doing much of the initial legwork and synthesis. That’s the core value of our Tipsheet — we don’t just give journalists ideas; we make it easier and faster for them to get started.

Perhaps the tipsheet approach might appeal to more than just journalists. Perhaps it might also prove compelling to schools, concerned citizens, businesses, and more? Maybe, in some cases, even more traditional mainstream news audiences such as voters or cost- or health-conscious consumers?

For instance, instead of (or in addition to) writing a story about a school board meeting, a tipsheet piece might offer context and leads to help citizens explore, understand and engage in a thorny local education issue.

Or, rather than write a story about a change in the local crime rate, crime statistics could be presented in context with related statistics (especially economic) and diverse sources to help people discover potentially meaningful patterns and various possible interpretations.

Or, rather than interview one or two sources for a radio piece on a new museum, a tipsheet could help people understand how the museum relates to the local community — including who paid for it, and who is likely to visit.

Would most people want to explore the news on their own? Probably not. But then, “most people” don’t care about any particular story you can find in a mainstream news venue. The “general audience” is a myth. When you get down to the story level, news has always been about niches. Every piece of news has its own community of relevance — and every news topic offers myriad potential stories.

What do you think of this idea?

(NOTE: I originally published a slightly different version of this post on Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)

Huessner interviewed me for this story because I’ve been blogging about it on Contentious.com and on E-Media Tidbits. She chose to include a few highly edited and interpreted quotes from me that I think grossly misrepresent my own views and the character of our conversation.

Yeah, being a journalist, I know that no one is ever completely happy with their quotes. I’ve been misquoted plenty in the past, and normally I just roll with it. But this particular case is an especially teachable moment for my journalist colleagues in mainstream media about understanding and covering the role of social media in today’s media landscape.

Today’s a pretty busy day for me, but I didn’t want to let this go unsaid any longer. So I made a little Seesmic video response to this story. Here I am speaking strictly for myself — not on behalf of any of my clients or colleagues. Yes, I am very emphatic here and somewhat critical. Please understand that my frustration is borne of seeing this particular problem over and over again.

Here’s a quick roundup of social media to check for updates and reactions. Some of this information is produced by professional news orgs and journalists, most is not. Use your own judgment regarding which to trust…

Twitter (UPDATED): It appears that on the ground in Mumbai, not many people are using Twitter to post firsthand reports. However, I am finding Twitter useful for links to blog posts, mainstream news reports, and photos and videos — which people from all over the world are monitoring and sharing.

• A general search for “Mumbai” will collect everything.
• The hashtag #mumbai is slightly more selective.
• The hashtag #mumbaifamilies is helping connect loved ones.
• You can also read geotagged tweets originating from within 15 miles of Mumbai.

Social news sites and citizen journalism (UPDATED):

• Wikipedia had a current events page, 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks.
• Mahalo also is tracking the news.
• NowPublic has multimedia coverage and an update on Twitter coverage.
• Ground Report also has coverage.

Blogs: (Updated. New items added to top)

• Canadian journalist Mathew Ingram posted about how this episode indicates that Yes, Twitter is a source of journalism — echoing the theme of my recent post: Can you commit journalism via Twitter?
• Children of Bombay: Eloquent first-hand account of escaping an attack scene from Sonia Faleiro.
• A Mumbai Help blog has been set up, and several prominent Indian bloggers are participating.
• The community blog Mumbai Metblogs has lots of coverage, including photos and video.
• India Uncut offers blogger Amit Varma’s firsthand account of escaping the scene of an attack.
• Gaurav Mishra offers a roundup: Real Time Citizen Journalism in Mumbai Terrorist Attacks.
• Maitri Venkat-Ramani also has a good roundup.
• On Global Voices Online, Neha Viswanathan posted a roundup of reports from several Indian blogs.

Organization sites:

• My E-Media Tidbits colleague Alan Abbey noted that the Jewish organization Chabad has been reporting on its own site about one of the hostage situations — at the Chabad House in Mumbai. Initial report and followup.

Maps: Here’s an embeddable Google Map of the attack sites

Flickr: Vinu has several photos from an attack scene.

In addition, here are some especially interesting efforts by pro journalists and news orgs:

The South Asian Journalists Association is hosting live discussions with journalists and experts in Mumbai and the U.S. about the terrorist attacks on hotels and elsewhere in Mumbai.

NDTV is streaming live Indian TV coverage.

“Journalism requires that stories been constructed, facts be tied together, narratives presented, and context created. In short, journalism is the big picture.

“No one would argue that you can get the pig picture in 140 characters. But what about aggregate tweets? One person over a long time, or many people over a large subject?

“Is Twitter a viable, standalone medium for journalism?”

I think this quesion misses the mark regarding the nature of journalism. It confuses the package with the process. That’s understandable, because in the history of mainstream news, journalists and news organizations have often taken a “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” approach to revealing their own processes. When all the public sees is the product, it’s easy to assume that’s all there is to journalism.

Here’s the comment I left on his post:

Hmmmm…. I do journalism, and I know a lot of journalists, and I’ve seen what Twitter can do. It seems to me that any medium — from Twitter to broadcast news to smoke signals — has potential journalistic uses.

Journalism is a process, not just a product. For many professional journalists and other people who commit acts of journalism, Twitter is already an important part of their journalistic process (i.e., connecting with communities and sources, and gathering information). And it can also be part of the product (i.e., live coverage of events or breaking news, or updates to ongoing stories or issues)

So yes, Twitter CAN be a real news platform. As well as lots of other things. Just like a newspaper can be the Washington Post, the National Enquirer, or a free shopper’s guide. It all depends on what you choose to make of it.

And also: These days, almost no news medium is “standalone.” Every news org has a web presence, and many have a presence in social media, and also in embeddable media.

…That’s my take. What’s yours? Please comment below — or send a Twitter reply to @agahran