A fist-chop in the throat and surveillance by secret police seems to have put a swift end to the career of China's most popular investigative blogger Zhou “Zuola” Shuguang, but judging from his post earlier this month ‘Zhou Shuguang's understanding of citizen reporters and citizen media’, if you were to ask him: “is citizen journalism dead?”, you'd stand a very good chance of being told that bloggers like him can and must “do journalism”, and why. Throw in the way he coldly describes personal accounts as sample specimens below, in addition to making a few criticisms and judgments, and you might just leave seeing citizen media as both an art and a science:
我想，我是最有资格说公民记者与公民新闻的，因为，我在用我纯朴的动机在实践我对个人媒体的理解，我记录我认为新奇的、有趣的事情，我认为不对的、需要改善的事情。至于我为什么不颂扬那些”美好的”，我每次都用这样的回答：”消息（广告、资讯或情报）的价值在于不确定性和新奇特点。比如，你知道周曙光是男的，狗是会咬人的，然后告诉我这类已知消息，你这条消息对我有价值吗？”所以，我不说废话，只说有（吸引眼球）价值的话，只说愿意负责的话。
一个星期前，有新加坡的新闻学者对我进行电话访问，对我做一个研究。我们讨论一段时间后，她被我一句话弄得大声尖叫起来，她惊讶我把”新闻”二字解构了。我先不如我如何解构”新闻”，我先从最近人们对我的批评说起。
在《沈阳市民讨论蚁力神》的简短视频后面，有人如此评论：
你的新闻能力很幼稚。
你在故意把老百姓的态度向政府头上引导。你说”我觉得政府也得负责”、”赵本山也得负责”这些话，就是非常不中立的态度，这样做 新闻是很失败的。
赵本山是该骂，但是骂他的话不能从记者嘴里说出来，不带任何感情色彩的报道，才叫真正的新闻工作者我幸好没承认过我是”记者”，所以我不必遵守记者的行为准则。我只是一个BLOGGER，一个到辽宁旅游的旅游者。我反问了这个留言者一句：”当事人说的话算不算新闻？”
好了，我泄密吧，那天我就是这一句话让新加坡的郑佳雯尖叫起来。
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.
是这样的，郑佳雯在跟我讲”专业媒体”和”专业新闻工作者”的特点，好让我知道与”个人媒介”和”公民记者”的区别，她跟我说，专业新闻工作者是这样的：
1. 报道中的观点要平衡；
2. 观点要客观，有观点要引用他人观点，借被采访者之口说出来，然后对观点进行取舍，从而体现媒体的观点，媒体从来都是这样么做的，根本未曾客观，没有哪个媒体能得罪广告大客户和所属政党；
3. 报道要真实，不能像纽约时报的那个总是用”据不愿意透露姓名的官员透露”的手法来制造假新闻的贾森·布莱尔一样造假；
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.
但我的的BLOG如果也算是新闻的话，我经常做一些专业媒体所不容许的方式：
1. 放到BLOG上的照片有自己的脸，在重庆发布了有自己的脸的自拍照片，在厦门也发布了在事件现场的自拍照片，在沈阳也在视频中露脸，甚至在视频中添加了音乐，让记者们觉得我很荒诞，不像一个严肃的记者；
2. 不客观，我总是只报道我能接触到的人和事，我不去报道那些我接触不到的官员，我的角度只能从平民老百姓的角度去了解事件，没有刻意去平衡观点，这世界的观点冲突不是我能平衡的，比如，党员和傻逼就是多，社会本来就黑暗，我能在报道中”平衡”地说聪明人和傻瓜一样多吗？显然刻意平衡是愚蠢的作法；
3. 明目张胆地收受当事人提供的路费，胆大妄为地接受当事人提供的食宿；
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;
在所有专业媒体的新闻准则中，我的网络日志中的多媒体记录资料（文字、照片、视频、录音）只满足了真实性和时效性，其它的要求我都没满足。
所以，我认为，作为个人性质的记录，不需要刻意平衡观点，不需要客观，不需要独立。只需要真实，只需要记录者交待自己在所报道事件中的角色或者位置，要为自己的言论负责。
回到那个关键的问题上来，当事人说的话算不算新闻？我当然说算。但这种新闻是不符合客观报道、平衡观点的要求的，我个人认为这的的确确是新闻，或者说，我们不用考虑他是不是新闻，只用考虑当事人说的话能不能当成消息来源和新闻线索。
从几年前的孙志刚事件，到最牛钉子户到厦门反PX再到正龙拍虎，这些网民参与推动社会民主进程的事件，加上我以前讨论过《公民记者是否应该收取当事人的费用》，我的结论是：
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:
在旧的常识里，新闻工作者和受众在政治和社会活动中仅仅扮演旁观者，网络个人媒体（BLOG）、公民新闻、公民记者出现后，个人媒体和读者变成直接参与政治和社会进程，这是非常重要的变化，这应该成为一种新的常识。
至于什么是公民记者，我觉得不用拿记者的专业来说事，只要他的新闻报道不是职务行为，只要他提供的消息是他愿意负责的消息，他的消息无论多么的新奇，多么离谱，都是可靠的新闻和线索。
当然，如果某个个人媒体一枝独秀，也可能形成意见领袖，但由于BLOGGER的多样性，绝对不会被某个BLOGGER形成话语霸权。每个 BLOGGER都是可能成为某个公众事件中新闻提供者，所以每个BLOGGER都可能成为”公民记者”，正如每一个人都可能成为新闻当事人，只是新闻当事人不一定能像BLOGGER有一个传播平台。新闻当事人和公民记者的区别就在于，公民记者是拥有BLOG这个信息传播平台的新闻当事人。
如果你不喜欢公民记者四个字，那换”平民记录者”、”市民记录者”、”草民记录者”或”刁民记录者”吧。
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.]
至于什么是公民新闻，那就是由未审查的、独立的、不客观的、多样性的公民记录者提供的新闻，只有观点的多样性，才能更接近客观。
说到个人媒体和公民记者，人们常常会把我和老虎庙、翟明磊相提并论，并通常会给他们更多的赞扬。诚然，他们的文采比我好，感情比我丰富，使命感比我强，做事比我严肃认真。而我是用一种娱乐的风格跟他们做同样的事。这些不说，翟明磊以前是《南方周末》的记者，他当然比我更专业，他的文章肯定符合”客观””中立””观点平衡”，老虎庙是做文字工作的，他的文采也很好，很煽情。可是他们俩的文章我就是不爱读，为啥？我读不出惊喜，读不出新鲜，他们的笔调在报纸上看多了。翟明磊现在的BLOG上的文字和他以前发在南方周末的文章没啥区别，他还是按报纸的要求和风格在写东西，追求他的客观、独立、代表民意，避免文章中出现自己的影子和观点。
我一看翟明磊的壹报我就烦啊：说啥”铁骨铮铮，一人独立，欣然在野，哭歌民意”，这人太标榜了吧？还代表民意呢，三个代表也说是代表民意啊。民意这东西，自古以来，无人能代表民意，却有无数人在强奸民意。我只相信有足够多的采样才能统计出民意，我相信每个人未经确认只能代表自己。翟明磊帮助龙泉农民土地斗争，顶多获得龙泉农民的授权，所以他顶多代表龙泉农民，不能代表龙泉官员，更不能代表本公子。
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.
翟明磊和张世和（老虎庙）的文章我不爱读，他们抒情或煽情，说什么”难忘””感伤”，喜欢用叹号，喜欢强调意义，可我这种喜欢快速阅读的人只想尽快的知道事情的六个要素：时间、地点、人物、起因、发展、结局。事件的意义由读者自己来判断就好，作者都代表所有人用辩证法把话说得滴水不漏了，读者想参与互动的热情都没有了。我现在是一看他的新BLOG是说猫啊狗的我就略过不看了。我们都是畜生，在猫狗面前，我们并不显得有多高尚，有啥意义可挖掘？
他们的读者大都是熟悉的媒体圈的朋友，我的读者大都是陌生的同龄人。虽然我的文章写得没他们好，但我的BLOG比他们的BLOG弄得好，留言比他们的BLOG多，各种硬件技术和网络技术的运用比他们熟练，我被采访报道比他们多，批评者和赞赏者都很多，这就证明，我的文章的传播效果比翟明磊和张世和的文章好得多。也证明，客观和观点平衡是不必要的，还证明，数字时代的民主社会需要人们了解新闻行业和技术(A democratic society in the digital age needs people who understand both journalism and technology)－－Rich Gordon。
我想批评他们什么呢，我批评的是：没有人能未经确认（确认过程就是指投票啦）代表他人。张世和的西部各省考察只代表他所接触的人的看法和他自己的看法，只是我对这个世界形成看法的统计过程中的一个采样标本；翟明磊的龙泉土地斗争也只代表他所接触的人的看法和他自己的看法，他的看法又给我形成世界观的统计过程多了一个采样标本。假如我还能获得更多的标本，我对这个世界的看法就更接近真实和客观。所以，他们那种试图去代表和”未经确认获得代表权”的作法是被我批评的。
与本文主题相关的结论就是：
1. 每一个”公民记者”都只是这个世界上的统计过程中的一个采样标本。
2. 推动公民新闻就是推动人们拿尽可能多的采样标本来还原世界真实面貌的统计过程。
3. 采样标本只需要做到真实，不需要客观和平衡。
4. 社会不是一两个媒体就能改良的，需要无数的采样标本来普及常识–只有自己代表自己和只有自己才能救自己的常识。
5. 如果你也想像我一样天马行空，那么，有空就写BLOG表达你的想法吧，你能找到朋友的。
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.
10 comments
I’ve bookmarked this article, really interesting. I liked this line especially:
“When writers use dialectic to try and represent everyone and turn everything into air-tight logic, readers’ enthusiasm for participation and interaction gets lost.”
I’m not sure how the original sounded, but the translation is a very powerful statement. I wish more journalists writing in the “objective” style would understand this point.
John, You included a link to my blog article re: whether Citizen Journalism is dead. I’d like to clarify that I was referencing the way the phrase “Citizen Journalism” is mostly used today — as mainstream journalists directing the work of unpaid amateurs. In my view, that is a flawed, unworkable business model. I was not suggesting that non-journalists would not become big players in news. However, I don’t care for the term “citizens” either because it is such a small subset of what news will be about. The key news creators of the future will be experts in a wide variety of topic areas. If the topic area happens to be politics, and the expert happens to be a citizen like Zhou “Zuola” Shuguang, then this might be a model that works. Good luck with your efforts (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)
As the late Norman Mailer wrote:
“[…] the best investigative reporting of new journalism tends to rest on too narrow an ideological base — the rational, ironic, fact-oriented world of the media liberal. So we have a situation, call it a cultural malady, of the most basic sort: a failure of sufficient information (that is, good literary information) to put into those centers of our mind we use for assessment. […] The men who do the real work offer us no real writing, and the writers who explore the minds of such men approach from an intellectual stance that distorts their vision. […] All too many saints, monsters, maniacs, mystics, and rock performers are being written about these days, however, by practitioners of journalism whose inner vision is usually graphed by routine parameters. Our continuing inability to comprehend the world is likely to continue.”
I could not agree more.
To clarify my comment, I’d like to mention that, unlike Zoula, I am actually very interested in what bloggers such as Zhai Minglei and Tiger Temple have to say. Unlike Zoula, these people have an inner vision that goes beyond the routine parameters of “who, what, where, when, why and the conclusion” that Zoula emphasizes. And unlike Zoula, they seem to be able to transcend what he concludes to be the important “sample specimen / statistical process” (采样标本) that is so representative of the “cultural malady” bloggerism/journalism are suffering.
Zoula’s main criticism of bloggers such as Zhai Minglei and Tiger Temple seems to be that “nobody can speak on behalf of other people without their permission”. But Zoula seems to have forgotten this when he wrote his blog post.
I wonder whether it ever occured to him that (due to his very young age?) the “statistical process through which [he forms his] view of the world” is necessarily much more simplistic than what experienced bloggers/ journalists do to reach an informed opinion.
Maybe I’m simply too demanding to settle for a toned-down “entertainment style approach” that Zoula represents?
Besides, what is Zoula’s reason for talking so negatively about his former teachers anyway? Appeasing the government by demarkating a clear line that he will not cross? Creating a following among more nationalistic voices in China that may endorse some of his simplifications?
What I am trying to point out is that in order to transcend the “cultural malady” Norman Mailer mentioned, China needs more bloggers who speak out openly. And those who do, whatever their name, should be more solidaristic and supportive of each other.
@Chris
“turn everything into air-tight logic” could have been written as “make what people are [quoted as] saying sound water-tight.” The noun qualified by “water-tight” was “what is written on behalf of other people” and not the word ‘logic’ itself, I stuck that in because air-tight seemed to make more sense in this case, and what good is a vacuum without logic?
I’m not sure how the original sounded, but the translation is a very powerful statement. I wish more journalists writing in the “objective” style would understand this point.
I think it’s do-or-desist at this point. For every “quote” a writer warps to fit their own angle, there’s going to be another another blog post sent out to defend it. The same way millions of bloggers working together break stories faster than any NYTimes reporter or AP story stringer could; so in this case, why not start thinking about how to better utilize these networks.
So I definitely think now that the bar has been partially raised, the onus is on traditional media to pick up the other end and embrace the quality, foster it, even, that the blogsphere offers.
Back to your point, I really like the way Zuola puts it, that words like objectivity and balance don’t mean much if the end result sees non-truths being represented and not challenged. To pull some Naomi Klein or Glenn Greenwald in on this, how different is corporate journalism from ideological propaganda anyway?
@Steve Boriss
Thanks very much for commenting.
Directing the work of unpaid amateurs might not work in the US, but it’s progressing quite well on its own here. Though, what China lacks in a free media it makes up for—in a steadily growing number of areas—is pervasive internet access and smartphones not tied to any particular telecom carrier, among other things, the most of which is its nearly 200 million internet users. Major stories are broken by China’s army of forward-thinking bloggers on a steady basis, they just don’t often make it into English. Two that have received some foreign but limited or no domestic coverage of late are the collapse of the massive ponzo scheme in northern China’s Shenyang and the campaign against building a huge toxic chemical factory in the Xiamen in the south, carried out mostly online, and driven by bloggers, namely Lian Yue, but which has definitely been a group effort and seen the issue analyzed from every scientific angle possible, with each blogger contributing their own particular expertise.
Those two are community/direct interest stories, that’s true. But I wish you could see just how much time and effort that tens of thousands of Chinese bloggers spend each night (out of work journalists or chemistry specialists blogging during the day, no doubt) analyzing political stories, solving murder cases, exposing politicians’ lies and fulfilling a whole series of other media roles that Chinese journalists don’t have the time or space or capacity to even come close to. If I could recommend one blog where you can follow all this, it would be EastSouthWestNorth, if you can handle the rate at which he translates these things.
With the group brain that China’s blogsphere quickly became in 2007, with all the non-amateurs who dedicate so much time to it, I look forward to 2008 with complete enthusiasm. And with everything that’s done for free on the Chinese blogsphere, I’m not convinced at all that a functioning business model is the key to solving this problem, at least in China. How does that help Americans? You should see how much time gets devoted to dissecting/adding to US news stories.
John, I’m not sure there is a disagreement between us. The reference point on my blog is the U.S., not China. If it’s not actually a “business” there is no need for a “business model.” And I’d imagine that the most popular blogs that are visited are likely to be the best, with “expertise” defined as superior knowledge, information, or talent. There is a movement in the U.S. to sustain Old Media by having reporters develop pro-am (professional-amateur) relationships. I have been debunking that as a competitive business model.