Gary Andrews

Nosemonkey, who runs the excellent Eutopia, has a fascinating post on citizen journalism/blogging, inspired by an emailed question on the subject [1].

[A quick bit of background here, if you haven't just gone through and read his long piece. On the day of the July 7 bombings, Nosemonkey ended up liveblogging the event due to conflicting reports on news channels, plus the general sense of confusion that abound. It was, and still is, a great example of how blgging and/or citizen journalism can work and is possibly one of the best posts to emerge from the blogosphere].

What’s refreshing is his mixture of cynicism and enthusiasm for blogging. Much as I’m a proponent for all that is Web 2.0, it’s always useful to step back and ask: “So, we can do this. What is it actually achieiving?” In the case of social bookmarking especially it’s a great way to share stories (an update on cutting a story out of the newspaper and passing it onto a friend), find great content, and, for journalists, track what users believe to be important. Slow burning stories can also be picked up this way.

The best blogs too aren’t the ones that claim to be breaking the news or searching for bias, but the ones that have a genuine knowledge and passion for their subject (which is why I think niche sites will be the next big thing, internet wise this year).

And yes, in these cases they often surpass coverage in the traditional media because the blogger is more au fait with the subject than the journalist (assuming the blog isn’t already hosted on a major site). Other citizen journalism is more a case of being in the right place at the right time and happening to have a blog.

The concept of citizen journalism from a few years ago is probably near to vanishing. Those blogs that do, on occasions, break news stories, are largely well-known and well-staffed (and often pick up their sources from other blogs or websites, they just don’t bother running them through the laywers first). More often well-known bloggers use their site as a shop window and earn their corn thanks to their blog but not because of it.

But blogging is still a great medium, whether you’re running a personal blog for three or four friends, covering a niche topic, or attracting a large readership as an expert on the topic. It’s a great way of carrying on the conversation beyond the news article (which I still think should be kept as separate from comment as possible), can provide a great lead for a story, or a change to gauge the depth of feeling if you’re a journo or PR. It also makes it easier to pick up on errors of poor writing.

I’m still positive about the bloggersphere and Web 2.0 as both a journalism and a publicity medium, and it’s great to see the media embracing new trends and experimenting with them, a la Birmingham Post and delicious.

But it still doesn’t hurt to be cynical about the Web. For every trend that works, there’s half a dozen that the media will jump aboard only for it to be a less than stellar success. In some respects you could say the philosophy of scientific testing and paradigm shifts applies just as much to internet trends as it does to biochemistry and physics. Eventually the problems with citizen journalism or a Web 2.0 trend will collapse under the weight of all the problematic rocks that have been thrown at it.

I’m not quite sure what point or conclusion I’m trying to come to here, other than embrace Web 2.0 but also question why, how, and what you want to achieve at every step of the way.

[1] I emailed Nosemonkey with a similar request several years ago when I was doing a similar piece for my postgrad course. If I kept the post from the now defunct Coffee and PC, I’ll post it up here. It’d be interesting to see if his views have changed since then.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: blogging, citizen journalism, Eutopia, Nosemonkey, Web 2.0, web trends

Wat Tyler has a list of subjects that won’t get A level students into Cambridge, along with a bit more about dumbing down. Given that nearly all the A levels I took were on the list [1], I doubt Oxbridge would come calling to me nowadays.

(Although, unless the standard of physics GCSEs has risen significantly over the summer, the sciences hardly inspire confidence for our great young minds.)

As somebody who spent the majority of his A level and university life studying soft subjects, I always feel slightly compelled to defend them. Or rather, the ones I studied, or near-as studied, in this case communication studies and media studies.

The latter may be perceived as soft. In some cases the syllabus and teaching methods probably are softer than they should be. But it doesn’t mean that media studies isn’t important. On the contrary, taught well media studies could be an important and useful subject for those who chose to take it.

The media is a wonderful and vague area, compassing everything from television to radio to newspapers, magazines, mobile technology, iPods, the music industry, blogs, podcasts, downloads and the internet in general to name but a few. The media is all pervasive in today’s society: our lives are surrounding by media of all sorts and, like it or not, the media will continue to play a key role in shaping the world around us, be it traditional mainstream media, online technologies, or a mixture of new and traditional [2].

So, if something is as all-consuming as the media, doesn’t it deserve to be studied? And if there are certain phenomenons occurring within this field, don’t these also deserve to be studied? And if the media is going to play an even more key role in the future of today’s teenagers lives, doesn’t that also deserve to be studied? [3]

Take Facebook, and social networking sites in general, which were the buzzword online of 2007, and have become an essential part of everyday life for some people. At university level, social networks, blogs, and other such internet phenomenons deserve to be studied: if something becomes successful or has a major impact on our lives, it’s worth asking why. And depending on what these studies produces, and what’s taught in modules on blogging and Facebooking, it’s not inconceivable such topics could filter into A level syllabuses sooner rather than later. If this enhances student’s understanding of the world they inhabit, and inspires them further, this can only be a good thing.

Of course, there are two things needed to pull up a soft subject such as media studies: a good syllabus and a good teacher. A quick look at a basic syllabus for media studies shows things haven’t moved on too much since I was at college nearly ten years ago. Certainly, more recognition of the impact media has on our lives would be a good thing. And I’m still to be persuaded on how shooting a quick short will enhance understanding of the media. But even so, there’s still much in there that can be used, applied and turn the teenagers into better informed citizens and consumers.

Media studies shouldn’t be seen as a better or worse option than more traditional subjects; all have their merits. It also shouldn’t be pushed as a soft option, or used by schools to massage figures. But if you’ve got a teenagers genuinely interested in the media then there’s no reason to discourage them from taking it. Similarly, if you’ve got a teen who has no clue what they’re interested in, it’s a case of directing them towards the course they’d get most stimulus out of.

This isn’t to say I’m a great fan of the plethora of media studies available at degree level – if anything there’s a few too many of them around, and they do their bit to keep wages in the sector reasonably low. But that’s another discussion for another blog post.

One final thought: Ten years ago, Film Studies was by far the hardest A level I took – I found it much more difficult than Philosophy. But it was also probably the most interesting. This was down in no small part to the inspirational teacher I had, who cut no slack to those who saw it as a way to coast through college and pushed us all hard, but if you were interested and keen to learn, she’d go out of her way to help you go that bit further. An the syllabus included elements of business, economics, and history among other aspects. It didn’t just view film in its own bubble, it took into account the wider effects of cinema. Result: not only did it increase my appreciation of film, it also taught me stuff I didn’t know about the world beyond that, and has proved useful from time to time on a practical level, which is what any good GCSE or A Level should be doing.

[1] Philosophy being the one that doesn’t appear. I’m not entirely sure whether that makes me more or less of a soft-subject man. I did, however, get a lot better in arguing and could throw out references to Aristotle, Descartes et al in an effort to make me look intelligent.

[2] Although it really is time to stop referring to line and mobile media as new media. It’s been around for long enough and is, by and large, nearly fully integrated into the MSM.

[3] This is an argument you could justifiably apply to other subjects such as ooh, I dunno, economics and physics, two subjects I’d love to see have a broader appeal, as they, like media, both explain how things work. I’d argue economics should really be pushed as an option at GCSE level, as the basics could easily be explained to a 15-year-old. And it ties up nicely with media studies as well.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: A Levels, film studies, GCSEs, media studies, physics GCSE, social networking, studying Facebook