Is the Iran Coverage the Future of Journalism?

A shot from a user-generated video of the protest in Iran, dubbed the Neda video
When you look at the blurry, shaky, low-resolutions videos that have dominated coverage of from Iran recently, you may be looking at the future of broadcast journalism.
“I’ve never seen anything to this extent – the Mumbai attacks had some, but not this amount, day after day,” Leigh Felesky, the senior producer for user-generated content at CBC News said today.
The lock-down on mainstream media in Iran, combined with vivid accounts captured by Iranian citizens, has propelled user-generated content to the forefront of many newscasts – and has blurred the line between professional and amateur coverage.
“It think it’s crossed over into that area where there’s no distinction anymore,” Felesky said. “It’s part of the everyday telling of the story, and it’s incorporated into the story-telling.”
In Iran, restrictions on traditional media have forced many broadcasters to turn to the internet for content. Producers are looking to Twitter and YouTube for updates on the story, while their reporters are stuck in hotel rooms; and that’s changed the role of journalists.
“We used to have to make a lot of phone calls… Now it comes to you,” Esther Enkin, Executive Editor at CBC News said.
According to Rachel Nixon, the new director of digital media at CBC News, journalists are increasingly “taking on the role of authenticators and verifiers.”
Although the situation in Iran is unique, the advent of user-generated news content creates opportunities across the board.
The reality is that no news organization is staffed to cover every story, in every location. But user-generated content “allows news organizations to get coverage from the scene, even when they don’t have their own reporter on the ground,” Nixon added.
The advent of citizen journalism also creates opportunities for professional journalists to build relationships with their audiences “by reflecting the world as they see it,” Nixon wrote in a email this afternoon.
“Our audiences are telling us that they want to participate,” Enkin said. The audience then “becomes partners on some levels,” she added “It’s not just a compelling images, it’s also a resource that we can use to tell the story.”
But as journalists rely more and more on user-generated content, there’s also risks. The content is hard to verify, the sources are often anonymous and when the material was shot is usually not clear. The New York Times highlighted this problem on their blog recently, when they pointed out that at least four videos appeared on MSNBC recently that were dated inacurately.
“We know we can’t verify this stuff,” Felesky said, and that creates a obligation for professional journalists. Felesky said that the online audience can provide a solution. She said users will often correct errors and can help in authenticating clips.
Nevertheless, especially with stories like the protests in Iran, where tons of material is being uploaded by motivated activists, there is obvious risk.
“The duty to ensure that we are not being manipulated is even greater than it was… but the upside is well worth the risk,” Enkin said.
|
|
Email This Post |
| News & Journalism |




















Sometimes a little fact checking is required when airing “user generated content”.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/us_world/NATL-Counter-Intelligence-0623.html
[...] original here: Is the Iran Coverage the Future of Journalism? Comments [0]Digg [...]
Hey, have you seen this news article?
New details about Michael Jackson’s Death Emerge
I was wondering if you were going to blog about this…
I love it when people say the future is “blurry video.”
Won’t be long before those cameras are broadcast quality.
I’m sure journos will find another thing to be frightened about.
With the advent of raw, in the moment, true-life videos, it will be interesting to note the level of censorship that will be employed. I’m referring to journalistic censorship –the worse kind.
Your link to the new york times goes to a real estate agent?
oops. I fixed that.
by “motivated activists” is better than $$$$$$ activists.