Global Voices Online

As I see it, I'm the most suited to be speaking about citizen journalism and citizen media, as I have, with my simple motives, put into practice what I understand personal media to be. I record things that I think are original and interesting, or things that I think are wrong or need improving upon. As for why I don't focus more on “the finer things,” I always answer as such: “the value of information (advertisements, news or tip-offs) is in its constantly-shifting and novel nature. For example, you know that Zhou Shuguang is a man, or that dogs will bite people; if the information you're giving me are things I already know, is your information of any value to me?” This is why I don't talk nonsense, and only talk things of (eye-catching) value, things I'm willing to take responsibility for.

A week ago, a media scholar from Singapore interviewed me over the telephone, part of research she's doing on me. After we'd talked for a bit, something I said made her start screaming; what shocked her was my deconstruction of the word “news” [新闻，新+闻]. Before I explain my deconstruction of “news”, I ought to start with recent criticisms people have made of me.

In the comments on the short video “Shenyang residents discuss Yilishen“, someone wrote:

Your eye for news is pretty childish.
You're deliberately directing people to take positions against the government. When you say things like, “I think government should also take responsibility”, “Zhao Benshan should take responsibility too”, this is an extremely un-neutral position. News done like this is quite a failure.
Zhao Benshan deserves to be cussed out, but that cussing cannot come from the mouth of a reporter; it's when one's reports contain no emotion or coloring that one can truly be called a media worker.

Fortunately, I haven't confessed to being a “reporter”, and so I'm under no obligation to abide by the journalist's code of conduct. I'm just a blogger, who traveled to Liaoning as a tourist. I replied to this commenter with just one question: “does what the concerned parties have to say count as news or not?”

So, I might as well spit it out, the other day it was that exact same line that made the scholar from Singapore scream.

It's like this. Talking with her about the characteristics of “professional media” and “professional media workers” really impressed upon me the difference between “personal media” and citizen reporter”. She told that professional media workers:

1. Keep a balance views in reporting;
2. Keep views objective: those with views must cite others' views, speaking through what interviewees say, and then from there take or leave said point of view, thus forming the media's view, as media has all along done. If there were no objectivity, then there would also never be any media offending larger advertising clients or political parties;
3. Keep reporting truthful, not using “according to officials who wish to remain unnamed” to tell lies like the New York Times and their Jayson Blair.

But although my blog might also count as news, I do often do a few things that aren't allowed of professional media:

1. I put photos of my own face on my blog; I did that with pictures from Chongqing, as well as from the scene in Xiamen, as well in video I shot in Shenyang, to which I even added music, leaving readers feeling I'm quite absurd;
2. I'm not objective; I always only report on the people and stories I encounter, and I don't report on officials whom I'm unable to be in contact with. My angle as I come to understand events can only be an angle as that of ordinary, common citizens, and I don't go to painstaking lengths to keep reports balanced. The clashes between points of view in this world are not ones that I am able to bring balance to. For example, there are just as many officials as there are stupid c***s, and society has always been a shady place. Am I able to say with “balance” in my reports that there are just smart people as there are idiots? Obviously, going to lengths for balance is a foolish approach;
3. I brazenly accept travel reimbursement offered by those directly involved, as well as recklessly accept the food and accommodation they provide;

By news standards for all professional media, the multimedia materials (text, photos, video, audio) in my blog posts only satisfy standards of authenticity and timeliness. I don't satisfy any of the other requirements.

So in my opinion, personal media reporting doesn't need to strive for balanced viewpoints, and doesn't need to be objective, or independent. It only need be accurate, with the reporter stating his or her role in the reporting of any event, and taking responsibility for his or her own words.

Back to the topic above, does what the people directly involved have to say count as news? Of course, I'd say it counts. While this kind of news doesn't meet requirements for objectivity or balance, I do personally feel that it definitely is news, or at least, we don't need to consider whether or it it is news, but instead whether or not those involved can serve as sources of information or news tips.

From the Sun Zhigang incident a few years back to the Chongqing Nailhouse to Xiamen's opposition even on to Zhou Zhenglong and his tiger photos, these being incidents where netizens took part in pushing society further down the course to democracy, in addition to what I discussed in ‘Should citizen reporters charge the people they report on?', my conclusion is:

Under the old common sense, news workers and their audience, in political and social movements, need only play the role of observer. Since the appearance of personal media (blogs), citizen media and citizen reporters, personal media and its readers have become directly in the course of politics and society. This is an extremely important change, and ought to become a new kind of common sense.

As for what a citizen reporter is, I don't think the professionalism of a journalist applies. Just as long as his news reports aren't done in a professional capacity, as long he is willing to vouch for the information he provides, no matter how novel or far-out his news is, it's all still reliable news and leads.

Of course, if one person's personal media stands out from the rest, there is the possibility for it to become an opinion leader. But with the diversity among bloggers, there is no possibility for any one blogger's hegemony over discourse. Every blogger stands the chance to become a news provider for any public incident, and that's why all bloggers are potential “citizen bloggers.” The same way anyone could become the subject of news itself, only that those in the news aren't necessarily in possession of their own broadcast platform, as bloggers are. The difference between those in the news and citizen reporters is that citizen reporters are people in the news who also have their own information dissemination platform: a blog.

If you don't like this term citizen reporter, [then make up your own…civilian recorder, city beat note-taker, grassroots, muckraker, etc.]

As for what citizen news is, that would be unfiltered, independent, non-objective and diverse news recorded and distributed by citizens themselves; only with a variety of viewpoints can objectivity be most closely approached.

Speaking of personal media and citizen reporters, people often see me, Tiger Temple and Zhai Minglei in the same light, and tend to give the two of them more praise. To be sure, they're both better writers than I am, and have more passion than I do, a much stronger sense of purpose; they're also much stricter and more serious in their work. Whereas I use more of an entertainment style approach in doing the same thing they do. It almost doesn't need to be said, that Zhai Minglei used to be a reporter for Southern Weekly, so of course he's more professional than I am, and his writing definitely bears “objectivity”, “neutrality” and “balanced views”. Tiger Temple is a writer by trade, and his writing style is great, very moving. Yet I'm not that interested in reading what they write. Why is that? I get no surprise from reading their work, no fresh feeling. I see enough of their writing style in the newspapers. There is no real difference between what's now on Zhai Minglei's blog and what he used to write at Southern Weekly; he still adheres to a newspaper's standards and style when he writes, seeking for objectivity in his work, independence, representation of what the masses believe, seeking to prevent any shadow of himself or his points of view from appearing in his writings.

Every time I read Zhai Minglei's 1bao [zh], I get annoyed. What is “firm and unyielding, myself and independent, eager opposition, crying out public opinion”…this guy thinks too much of himself, no? He even represents public opinion, but so didn't Jiang Zemin? This thing, public opinion, since time immemorial hasn't been represented by anyone; rather, public opinion has been screwed by countless people. I believe that only with sufficient sampling can public opinion be calculated, just as I believe that everyone unable to affirm that can only thus represent themselves. Zhai Minglei helped the Longquan peasants in their land struggle, and obtained their utmost authorization, as so was able to represent at most the peasants of Longquan, but not the government officials of Longquan, and he definitely does not represent me.

So I'm not a big fan of Zhai Minglei and Tiger Temples' writings. They're too sentimental and moving, all “unforgettable” and “sorrowful”, fond of exclamation and emphasis. I'm the kind of person who likes to scan and only looks quickly for six things: who, what, where, when, why and the conclusion. The best kind of judgment as to the significance of any event is the one a reader comes to his or herself. When writers use dialectic to try and represent everyone and turn everything into air-tight logic, readers' enthusiasm for participation and interaction gets lost. Now, whenever I look at his new blog, all I see is “dog” this, “cat” that, my eyes just skip right over it. We are all beasts, after all, and to a cat or dog we don't look so special either, so what meaning are we supposed to pull out from this?

Most of their readers are old media friends, whereas most of my readers are strangers around my own age. Though my writing isn't as good as theirs, my blog is better put together, and gets more comments than their blogs do; I'm more familiar with hardware and internet functions than they are, I get interviewed more than they do, and I have a lot more critics and admirers too. This just proves that the dissemination of my posts is more effective than that of Zhai Minglei and Tiger Temple's. It also proves that objectivity and balance of viewpoints is also not essential. Even more, it proves that “[a] democratic society in the digital age needs people who understand both journalism and technology.” (Rich Gordon)

So what is it I'm criticizing of them? My criticism is that nobody can speak on behalf of other people without their permission (the process of which does imply the casting of votes..). Tiger Temple's blogging tour through all the western provinces only represents the views of those people he came across as well as his own views, but for me and the statistical process through which I form my view of the world, this is but just one sample specimen. And the more specimens I'm able to obtain, the closer my view of the world comes to reality and objectivity. This is why I criticize their approach of attempting to speak on people's behalves and doing so “a given right to represent”.

My conclusions on the main topic of this post are:

1. Every “citizen reporter” is only just a sample specimen within a worldwide statistical process.
2. Furthering the cause of citizen media is to further people in taking as many sample specimens as possible in the statistical process of restoring the appearance of what's true in this world.
3. Sample specimens only need be true, and not objective or balanced.
4. Society is not something that a blog or two can change for the better; this requires countless sample specimens serving to popularize common sense—only by speaking for one's self can one save one's own common sense.
5. If like me you have your own unconstrained style, well, then, if you have the time, get a blog and express yourself. You'll find your friends.