OhmyNews’ Version of Citizen Journalism

I had the opportunity to join a website where it says it was practicing Citizen Journalism. I didn’t understand what the term meant. Later, I discovered that professional journalists were working together with unschooled journalists which rather intrigued me. Then I happened to read of Steve Outing’s write-up of different levels of Citizen Journalism. As feedback to that Poynter Institute article, I read that the site where I joined claimed to be practicing a mix of two levels. Now, I had a name for what we were doing: Citizen Journalism.

I wrote an opinion piece in that site endorsing Citizen Journalism all the way. It was able to garner 53 recommends (minus 11 decommends) and 86 comments. The story stood there as top story for more than a week. As we discussed the CJ we were doing, I slowly believed that we were not doing it right - or faithfully, in terms of social responsibility.

First off, I tried to defend our site by saying CJ had many faces after I saw a screenshot of our writers’ site in OhmyNews printed side by side the photograph of George Bush. Using Altavista Bable Fish to translate the Korean language used, I got the impression that we were being critiqued. For what, I tried to decipher.

Not by the criticisms of OhmyNews on that site but by what slowly unfolded, eventually, I lost steam in my efforts to contribute my share. Initially, I got inspired by Indian writers doing their share as writers, just by photographs with social significance.

I found many news items there needing editing. Sure, it’s democracy at work if they refuse to be edited. One could also block another member from touching one’s work as in commenting or editing, although one could recommend or decommend one’s story by pressing on the arrows going up or down.

What disconcerted me is the practice of scoring. Sure, it can urge you to work harder although there can be no money involved, but the effect is strongly psychological. You just would not allow your name to be down there in the dumps. For a while, it was challenging, but eventually, one would find out there’s no logic in how the scores come about. Also, they tend to veer away from content. News is about content – not about scores.

But here come news links. Majority of supposed Citizen Journalists were merely pasting on news links from other sources. Yes, paste on news links! The second thing they mostly did was recommend news links of others, and presto! They got scores to their name.

Steve Outing said OhMyNews is popularly known for Citizen Journalism. I tried to scan the web and I found out the South Koreans were able to influence the Presidential elections in 2001 on account of Citizen Journalism espoused by OhMyNews.

Yes, there has to be success to measure in implementing Citizen Journalism.

Reading OhMyNews’ version of CJ makes me think it is the purist kind worth emulating.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=8&no=292915&rel_no=1

Encountering Citizen Journalism

The first time I found myself in iTalknews.com I was entertaining other thoughts. I found myself mixing with would-be journalists who I doubted of their ability to write - just judging from the way they constructed their headlines. I said to myself, “Yuck! Why did I have to come here?"

Since there were buttons for editing options, I began correcting some outputs. I felt that by doing so, I was also contributing to some people's attempts at getting published. Most of these were captions of photographs from developing countries and they do have a lot to tell. I noticed that they knew how to project social implications just through these captions, especially the Indian writers. I am touched by most of them.

I found myself lamenting the fact that I cannot touch other people’s work for correction. While the site recognizes the liberty of one to edit other people’s work, it reserves the right of the writer to deny such editing.

I also found myself wanting to have something published that would normally never see print in my own country. I see that I am able to do it in iTalknews.com without fear of reprisal. From here, I began to realize the significance of citizen journalism.

Before I came to iTalk.com, however, I didn’t have a name for this practice. Mixing the work of unschooled journalists with those of professional writers was unheard of before. Until one day, I read of Poynter’s piece.

Steve Outing wrote about “The 11 Layers of Citizen Journalism” in Poynter Online. Poynter Institute is a school for journalists. In this article, Outing discussed models of this mixing practice being adopted by many news websites. I also happen to have come across the feedback of Liz Lee who said iTalk.com was “loosely following models #6 and #10, from Steve's article.” I began to check.

Steve Outing said Model #6 is the stand-alone citizen-journalism site, edited version. This is the news-oriented website that is “comprised entirely or nearly entirely of contributions from the community.”

Outing also said Model #10 is integrating citizen and pro- journalism under one roof. Outing described it as "a news website comprised of reports by professional journalists directly alongside submissions from everyday citizens."

From there, I began to understand the mixing, and am quite happy for this development in the field of journalism. I am not sure, however, how everybody views this practice. But, of course, why shouldn't every citizen be able to speak?

I support Citizen Journalism all the way. I am also with those who think that formal journalism has its strait-jacket becoming too tight for modern journalism.

And may I add: In a country where there are structures that do not permit the voice of some sectors, Citizen Journalism comes in handy – especially in cyberspace.

[World] Citizen Journalism: For Every Daring Write
http://www.italknews.com/view_story.php?menu=top&submenu=&sid=5201

Isn't Patchwriting Plagiarism?

Not everybody knows what everybody calls plagiarism.

Three studies may lend insights into accusations of plagiarism in student write-ups.

Rennie & Crosby’s study on medical students published in the British Medical Journal is a take off from a survey conducted in 1980 on 428 American students that found that 58% reported cheating during medical school. A researcher-designed questionnaire was distributed to 676 medical students in all year levels at Dundee medical school The questionnaire had 14 scenarios in which a fictitious student, ‘John,’ engaged in dishonest behaviour. Students were asked to give their views on informing faculty about misconduct and signing a written declaration.

The researchers found that students consider dishonest behaviour to be wrong and would not engage in it. Most students replied that most of the scenarios were wrong. The proportion of students reporting that they had engaged in or would consider engaging in the scenarios varied from copying answers in a degree examination to copying directly from published text and only listing it as a reference. About a third of the students reported that they had engaged in or would consider engaging in the behaviour described in four of the scenarios: chatting about an objective structured clinical examination, writing ‘nervous system examination normal’ when this hadn't been performed, lending work to others to look at, and copying text directly from published sources and simply listing the source in a reference list.

However, that some students did report engaging in dishonest behaviour is seen as important and worrisome. Fewer students consider it wrong to reference published text incorrectly compared with copying in exams, submitting a senior student's work, or copying another student's work.

The responses for some of the scenarios involving plagiarism may indicate students' lack of understanding regarding referencing text appropriately and also a need for clear guidelines. Large proportions of students were also unsure whether exchanging information regarding an objective structured clinical examination was wrong. This may reflect confusion concerning the acceptability of swapping information and a lack of guidance given to students about appropriate behaviour. The researchers concluded that explaining to students what acceptable behaviour is, is important when trying to reduce dishonesty. Also, medical schools should take this matter seriously as it may cast doubt on the validity of qualifications.

An ERIC study by Love & Simons focused their study among graduate students in a college education. This qualitative study on cheating and plagiarism utilized six first-year masters students recruited from three different programs at Middle State University.

These three resource persons thought there might be specific behaviours related to plagiarism about which the students might be unaware. Although cheating and plagiarism seemed to be occurring, the respondents were uncertain about the sanctions for these behaviours. Factors noted as contributing to cheating included: pressures related to grades, the number of assignments, and running out of time; leniency of professors and their tendency to avoid addressing these issues; lack of awareness of the rules of plagiarism; and personal attitudes such as wanting to avoid hard work or lack of interest in the topic. Factors noted as inhibiting cheating and plagiarism included fear, guilt, personal confidence, positive professional ethics, and the desire to work or learn.

The researchers found that graduate faculty avoided dealing with these issues, either in communicating with their students about appropriate or inappropriate behaviour on in confronting the behaviour when it does occur. The fact that there have been relatively few studies of cheating and plagiarism at the graduate level further substantiate the conclusion that until faculty understand and overcome issues of discomfort, studying and confronting cheating and plagiarism among graduate students will probably continue to be avoided and ignored.

Another ERIC study by K. Klompien examined several research papers written by students who took part in summer bridge program at California State University.

Findings show that many of the strategies that students have used in the past in order to incorporate different texts are not only inappropriate in the university but could lead to accusations of plagiarism. Findings also point to possibilities that when making research or a paper, many instructors assume that students will be able to create an original text in which they are in clear command of the material.

When a writer attempts to adopt or apply what she has read to a given topic, according to M.M. Bakhtin (‘Problem of the text’), she is working with a ‘heteroglossia,’ or a multitude of different voices at once. In order for students to incorporate ‘alien’ words and ideas of others into their essays, they are expected to master the conventions of quotation and paraphrase.

Klompien cited Glynda Hull & Mike Rose (‘Rethinking remediation. Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing’). In ‘Written Communication’ which explores a phenomenon called ‘patchwriting,’ Hull and Rose accordingly see this as a stage of development in which students are exploring different ideas but have not absorbed them thoroughly enough to put them into their own words. They, therefore, include ‘patches’ of text from outside sources without paraphrasing. Hull and Rose describe this technique as ‘making slight modification to the original, changing a word here and there but copying the whole chunks verbatim.’

Klompien also cited Rebecca More Howard (‘Standing in the shadow of giants. Plagiarist, authors, and collaborators’) who says that all writers patchwrite, but some are just more successful to it than others.

Klompien found that some ‘patchwriting’ was used in all five of the research papers studied. ‘Patchwriting’ as earlier described sees students still exploring ideas without yet having absorbed meanings. The study notes that it is helpful for many students to use these techniques as they start writing at the college level in order to try to understand what the authors of their text believe and to begin to take on the language of the discourse community.

Analysis showed that the research paper is particularly difficult for the basic writer. To complicate matters, the atmosphere in the University often is one of suspicion and blame when it comes to any appearance of plagiarism, instead of one that encourages risk-taking and growth among its students.

Finally, Klompien concluded that the challenge of bringing in and successfully incorporating outside authorities can be overwhelming for students. The students need, therefore, their instructors’ help to learn to respond in ways that keep them from being susceptible to accusations of plagiarism.

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1132876

The Unequal Fight for Injustice: Beat Within vs. Mother Jones

Publications may come in many forms and purposes. Two published journals, The Beat Within and Mother Jones are not any different. On the surface, these published journals have striking similarities, but on the whole they have more differences than similarities. Aside from the outright difference in the age of their writers and the type of write-ups and contents, there is more to be said between these two publications.

The Beat Within is a San Francisco literary magazine that started in 1996 and is published by San Francisco’s Pacific News Service. It comes out weekly and includes essays, poems and art done by young people in prison. Readership of The Beat Within is primarily composed of the kids who produce them, and each issue would carry a page called “The Beat Without,” featuring an essay of a former juvenile hall detainee. The Beat Within started as a four-page newsletter when a mentor named Tupac died and the impact was so great, the children needed something to express their feelings on.

A reading of the stories would show a continuum of emotional standing from acceptance of fate and a more relaxed view of life with readiness to change, to an understanding of the past as some childish accident or inevitable part of growing up, to a resigned misgiving about a world and its thinking not yet properly understanding them. The last is expressed by Pure Dragon, a 7 year old boy who left China for America.

“When I think back on it, it all seems like a bad dream that has no future in it. But this ain’t no dream, this is my life. If I keep getting caught up in this system, I already know how my future would be, but I don’t want that future. I would like to go back to school, back to my family, to find me a job. I think the purpose of the hall is to change us one way or another. They have programs, counselors to talk to us, but they don’t know what we’re going through, so it is not helping us. Maybe if I stayed in China, a lot of things wouldn’t have happened to me.”

The stories are outrightly therapeutic for the children, allowing them release of the past. Their works are presented sometimes as slices of their lives in a paragraph or two These are embedded with articles from the staff or management generously supporting these bits of expressions, as for example this one from a boy left by his father to hang on a tree –

“I didn't cry out to my father, because he believed in punishing even more severely those who cry, so I just dangled in the wind trying to pull the unforgiving rope away from my neck as my father tied his end of the rope to the chicken coop, double-checked the knot, then walked back into the house.”

Meanwhile, Mother Jones may be said to be a journal of angst by activists, taking its name after a United States community organizer named Marry Harris Jones. Jones had remained a union organizer until she died. Founded in 1976, Mother Jones is published bimonthly out of San Francisco with a circulation of about 250,000. It is considered to be a left-of-center periodical whose investigations are used by people working for social justice. Mother Jones is run under the auspices of the Foundation for National Progress (FNP). The magazine is said to work directly with politicians, educators, advocates and social change organizations.

The background of these two publications may shed light into their personalities as crusading journals. The Beat Within was borne out of a need for some children in prison to express their grief for a dead friend. It is barely a decade old but speaks from an earlier beginning which is the environment a child comes upon. On the other hand, Mother Jones’ fight is with a quantitatively bigger world out there, institutions that have juridical personalities that can do their bigger version of injustice especially when organized.

Readership of Mother Jones is extensive, and can be said to be for the global village, having now its online version. Target readership is the B-C crowd or middle class groups who have much stake with the affairs of government. The contents are of investigative journalism and whose results are used by agencies, both government and private.

Meanwhile, the readership of The Beat Within are the wards themselves, although it has expanded to include immediate concerned groups. The contents are personal essays and artworks as expressions of their experiences. The circulation is local and non-commercial and the contents are experienced-based that have a lot to do with these people’s being incarcerated. They strongly express the workings of the mind of the wards who wrote them. One remarkable thing observed among the incarcerated children is their craving to be heard even by just one man.

Comparing the fight for injustice of these two, The Beat Within is still tougher than that of Mother Jones.

http://www.italknews.com/view_story.php?menu=&submenu=&sid=3539

5 Steps to Becoming a Credible Reporter

To be credible is very important to a writer as nowadays charges of manufactured "news" are being found in whatever medium. In fact, complaints after complaints have been written about this. Credibility is defined in the dictionary as "the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe that statement."

Every communicator is expected to have this quality as it has much bearing on his message. If a reporter lacks credibility, it is also most probable that his message may lack credibility in the presentation.

First, a writer or reporter must know the principles involved in any piece of writing. It does not take degrees to be able to come up with a good one. For instance, the Internet is full of instructions that can help a budding writer. As basic as knowing the necessary elements of news, for example, is important.

Will Richardson of The Georgia NJ Connection named ten of which he said a story only needs a few: oddity, emotion, consequence or its effect on the reader; proximity, drama, human interest, prominence, progress or technological advance; conflicts like man versus man, man versus nature, man versus machine, and man versus himself; and timeliness or the recency of the news. Surprisingly, he did not mention objectivity, which is considered very important in reporting.

Another important principle aside from using news elements is the use of data in reporting. One cannot be presenting news in general terms. Avoid saying, therefore, "According to reliable sources," "Some sectors observe," and the like, unless you have to protect your source. Name who, and tell what. With the subject named, mention the designation of the person relative to the news report. The source must have something to do with the data presented. For example, is he the officer-in-charge? Is he the spokesperson for the group? What is his personality in relation to the information?

Second, provide as much data as possible and check for facts. Robert F. Abbott, in writing for "Data Delivers Credibility," recommended using very specific information. He said, "Often, the more specific you can be, the more credibility you have."

Reviewer Brent Raynes, in evaluating writer/researcher Michael Grosso for a popular new book said, "He is a thorough and credible writer/researcher who assembles his case carefully and clearly. He weighs out the pros and cons, the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for [his topic]. He knows the arguments and he is well versed and familiar with the histories and sciences surrounding the issues explored herein." Would that we can all be like Grosso.

This means it is always best to look into what environment has to say about your topic. Citing authorities can be very enhancing. In a news report, for example, after the lead, the second paragraph usually begins with the words, "According to." The same is true with any research material. When one cites many leading authorities in one’s topic, one is actually resorting to the practice of looking into the state of the art.

In handling data, be extra careful. In a critical part of one country in Asia, some reporters intentionally misspelled names as a way of escape when confrontation for data is most probable. Double check on names, dates, figures. If you are not sure, try to call those concerned and check. As long as there is still time, edit your own story to make it more presentable. Nothing is ever final as long as it is still possible to make necessary changes.

Third, do not exaggerate. For example, if there were only 10 people you saw in the area, you must not say 100 to make the picture impressive. If the rank of the person involved is only a private, do not promote him to captain to make the story sensational. If the subject was only saying his stomach ached, do not write of that as pregnancy. If the person is gay, do not say he is a hermaphrodite. There are differences - great differences - especially if you knit all these into one story that becomes fiction at the end.

There was an enterprising news hen of a local newspaper in Asia who had exaggerated almost everything in her story. She wrote about a hermaphrodite who had a captain for a boyfriend and now the hermaphrodite was pregnant. Her paper ran the story for more than a week it "developed." The foreign news had taken notice of it and sent representatives of the World Health Organization as this was a "first of its kind." Before they could arrive however, the reporter said the hermaphrodite went into hiding. Needless to say, the reporter’s credibility was put into question. She had to make a public apology later on.

Fourth, as much as possible, keep your own opinions from entering into the picture. If you say "allegedly," for example, who alleged? Stick to facts. As much as possible, present all sides of your story to project an objective stance. News is supposed to be impartial. Bringing into the picture the fruits of one’s own selective perception gives only half of the picture or just nearly all of the truth. "Nearly" means some of the data may have been suppressed. If one habitually does that, he becomes insensitive to what is true and what is not.

As a source, whether in speaking or in writing, one must be credible. It is not surprising that among law enforcement agencies, whenever one has to give his statement, his credibility as a source is evaluated first before his message is ever considered. Sadly, this quality can be lost just by being careless with facts and by being found dishonest in reporting.

Fifth, a reporter should keep educating himself even after he earns his degrees. The world is changing fast in many aspects, just as the world of communication is. Every reporter worth his salt is expected to continue learning on even after he hangs his diploma. That much, he owes his readers.

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1132898