Ed Arnone: public / civic journalism is not a service, but a philosophy

“Most of the criticism of public journalism — especially the most sarcastic part of it — is based on misconceptions or erroneous judgments about what we mean by public journalism,” said Ed Arnone , a professor at the University of Miami (Ohio, USA). of the pioneers of the US journalism movement.

We talked with Ed in Novosibirsk, where he came to the seminar of the Institute for Press Development-Siberia "Legal regulation and professional self-regulation in multimedia participatory media".


- Ed, the first question I am asked about citizen journalism is a terminological question. How do you interpret this concept?

- As I already understood, in Russia, due to the translation, the terms “citizen journalism” and “public / civic journalism” were mixed. Here they are translated equivalently - “citizen journalism”.

In the USA, citizen journalism refers primarily to those who are not journalist by profession, but who publish news (or what they mean by the news) on blogs and personal websites. A small percentage of citizen journalists collaborate with publishing houses that decide for themselves whether or not to send the material sent to the strip.

Public / Civic Journalism is primarily related to professional journalists. The central idea is thoughtful in-depth work to incorporate the voices of members of society into the daily practice of the media. When the movement began, the faces of the authorities, the elite, university circles, and experts of various kinds were clearly represented on the pages of newspapers. Public / Civic Journalism motivates journalists to write stories not only in a political, but also in a public, everyday context, to show how an event will affect the life of a particular community.

- Yes, in our country citizen journalism is more often understood as the activity of bloggers. This is citizen journalism. What is the difference between an adherent of public / civic journalism and an ordinary journalist?

- For a long time, many of us who were involved in journalism reform, later called “public / civic journalism”, politely refused to give a definition of what we were doing. First of all, it was a conversation about improving our journalistic practice and our habits, so that they are more consistent with our goals and ethical principles. Especially in the part that concerns the journalistic story about what is happening in society. And even later, when the “movement of popular / public journalism”, as it was called, grew to hundreds of experiments conducted by editorial offices on different continents, no one could give, did not give, did not attempt to define this concept.

But from the very beginning there is an urgent reason to discuss why we are experimenting in this field, to talk about our motives and principles that we are trying to follow. This is true because most of the criticism - especially its most sarcastic part - is based on misconceptions or erroneous judgments about what we mean by public journalism.

I personally am not sure that journalists are aware of the problems that really concern their community. They should go out from their desks and computers and just walk through the streets, listening to what people are talking about. When you are near people, you hear real conversations that are different from what is said at official gatherings and meetings. If you invest your time in this, every time you write material, you will remember how your readers feel, what is valuable to them, how they prioritize.

We mean by public journalism:

• Think of people first of all as citizens, before you think of them as consumers of a “product”
• To formulate the problem in generally understood terms (not in expert, not in institutional, not in ideological terms). Do your best, use everything you have to find out how citizens want to discuss this situation. (Question to consider and revise later: What roads do we usually go in search of news?)
• Remember that the important and priority task of a news organization in a democratic society is to help create a public space, in a literal and figurative sense. In this space, the community (society) could improve its understanding of the most important events and decide which way IT wants to go. This is another way where a journalist can help social life develop, in addition to improving the quality of its reporting work.
• Present news, stories from a “civilian” point of view. This means that it is necessary to keep in mind one question that must be asked: “What can we do together regarding this?” Sometimes journalists ask themselves reading questions: “What can I do about this” or “How will this affect me ? ”This is good, but not enough. We need to ask another question that will truly wake readers, listeners and viewers. The question is about collective efforts - small and large associations that are being formed or already exist - and not just "what the government should do."

.

“But journalists may object that the opinion of a responsible person from the government, a specialist helps the material to be better, backed up by expert accurate views.”

- When we present the government as “some other people”, as something separate from most of us, we misinterpret the management and solution of social problems solely as the responsibility of officials in our democratic society. The reality is that most of the work and progress achieved in solving any social problems is created outside the government, created by the hands of people and groups, discussing problems, jointly deciding what can be done in a particular situation, and acting on the basis of decisions.



We do not understand by popular, public journalism:

• Protecting or warning in any form, the news organization from the role of “watchdogs” and “fourth power”. There is nothing in “popular journalism” that restricts journalists from being qualified specialists or investigators as they want to be. In fact, I would say that popular journalism helps to find out exactly where to investigate.
• Violation of the principles of journalistic ethics and standards of honest, truthful, comprehensive and accurate reporting of facts.
• Advocacy and advocacy of one's views. In fact, we say the opposite - create conditions for the community to make informed decisions where it wants to go. And at the same time, the news organization as the editorial office is not obliged to agree with this direction.
• Journalism pushing the political agenda (except in the sense of showing citizen involvement in public life). We are not talking about pre-written answers, solutions or directions for the community. We are talking about helping citizens understand and discuss a set of perspectives based on the values ​​of this community in resolving social problems, tasks and doubts.
• Conducting surveys and focus groups dictating how to cover the event.
• The failure of journalists to determine the significance and rank the news. It would be preferable if this ranking was done on the basis of an active way of understanding your community and society.
• It’s just “better to listen” (this is a serious misunderstanding and a disservice to the practice of popular journalism). Saying this, they nullify the idea itself.
• Just an old-fashioned "good report." Well ... Yes and no. Is it true that “old-fashioned” journalists are doing everything in their power to understand the people who live in their community, and what matters to them? Do they attach importance to what citizens say in the same way that the words of officials and experts ... and of the journalists themselves are significant? Using a broader national or civil perspective would be a healthier, more accurate description of events, life in the community. And when people see themselves in this picture of the day, they will return to your newspaper pages and broadcasts, because the world will be presented there as they know it.
• Large and expensive projects that take away a huge amount of time and other resources from employees. In reality, we are talking about a daily approach to work, the essence of which is to make an honest daily attempt to truthfully describe how people live. Media can choose the path of projects or refuse to cover events that require a large selection of materials. But there is no difference in the "equipment" that you choose. The difference is in a certain way of thinking of a “people's journalist,” which is applicable to any story, large or small.

- New technologies allowed the journalist (who knows how to use them) to be faster in covering events that are significant for the community. How valuable do you think this is?

- Be careful. Do not equate the tools you use with the idea of ​​popular journalism. These technologies are things that are designed to help you in trying to make reporting on social issues more civil. But they are not the defining foundation of popular journalism.

Some technologies may be suitable for what you are doing, some may not. There is no need to interpret folk journalism as infographics, a block of questions and answers, dossiers for people, a list of links, videos shot by phone, tweets or other journalistic formats. The tools you use are not equal to what you are building.

I repeat, we are directing our efforts so that our journalistic habits, reflexes and practices become more “folk” or “civic” - we are changing attitudes. This is a way of thinking, an approach to your daily work. Do not mix them with features, techniques, tools, devices that journalists can use to achieve this goal.