Is Citizen Journalism Harming or Helping Professional Journalists?

Citizen Journalism is defined as “the involvement of non-professionals in reporting news, especially in blogs and other websites” by dictionary.com. In the modern world, citizen journalists have effectively spread news through a variety of social platforms, most namely twitter. Citizen journalists also often have blogs, where the difference between news and opinion gets blurred. The Libertarian Vindicator is a political blog with multiple contributors who discuss issues such as free speech in relation to the Libertarian party.  

Robert J. Bentley, history and political science professor in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

One of the authors, Robert J. Bentley, has written a few free speech related pieces: “Burning the American Flag is a Demonstration of a Free Society”, “Congress Just Violated Our Privacy By Allowing Our ISP’s To Sell Our Data” and “Are We Witnessing the Next Watergate Scandal?” Bentley’s articles are more opinionated, using titles such as “Congress Just Violated Our Privacy By Allowing Our ISP’s To Sell Our Data” to fully demonstrate his opinions. Blogs like these are important to spread different ideas, but they could show a bias that some people may not be able to detect. The biggest difference between an article written by a citizen journalist and a professional journalist is the language. While a casual tone is easier to read and more relatable, it gives the writer less credibility. For example, The Washington Post published a piece about burning the flag and comes to the same conclusion as Bentley, titled “President-elect Trump wants to ban flag-burning. Here’s why the Constitution protects it.” However, the article is written in a way that does not show the writer’s bias and just simply informs the reader.

Citizen journalists are important in times of duress, such as a mass shooting or a prolonged protest, like the Ferguson protests. They can, however, spread false information that is detrimental to the situation at hand. The Boston bombers were misidentified by Redditors on mission to help the police, and in doing so they falsely accused an innocent person.

 

 

The Importance of Free Speech in Activism and Journalism

 

Ross Kauffman (“Born Into Brothels” co-creator) reunited with some of the children and stars of the 2004 film in Calcutta, India in 2007. (Addie Morfoot/NBC)

“Born into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids” is a documentary that looked into the lives of the children who grew up in the brothels of Calcutta’s red light district. The photographer heading the project, Zana Brinski, originally went to Calcutta to photograph the prostitutes in the district. She befriended their children and offered to teach them photography, and thus became more invested in the lives of the children rather than the lives of the mothers. While the documentary has been highly praised, it has also been criticized for meddling too much in the lives of the children and misrepresenting prostitutes in India. This opens up the discussion on whether or not journalists like Brinski should intervene and when their journalism turns into activism.

Joel Simon’s piece “What’s the Difference Between Activism and Journalism?” delves into the activism versus journalism dilemma. Simon notes that in the age of social media, the lines between a journalist and an activist are getting more and more blurred. Some activists are posting, blogging, and self publishing articles on human rights violations without being linked to a journalistic entity. In cases such as Standing Rock, where both freelance journalists and protestors were arrested, it was hard to tell who was an “official” journalist and who was not. Much like Simon, I believe that the focus should not be on giving press freedoms to whomever the government deems an official journalist and rather ensuring the free speech rights of all. We as journalists cannot stop activists from posting to social media, rather we can promote freedom of speech and active discourse.

“But as the boundaries between journalists and nonjournalists continue to erode and any meaningful definition of journalism becomes more and more elusive, journalists have to recognize that their rights are best protected not by the special realm of “press freedom” but rather by ensuring that guarantees of free expression are extended to all,” Simon said.

Native Americans march near the encampment where people gathered to join the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s protest of the oil pipeline slated to cross the nearby Missouri River, September 4, 2016 near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

While I do agree with the above statement, I understand that there can be problems with activists posing as journalists. If the articles in question are spread but aren’t validly sourced or researched, then it can cause a huge spread of misinformation. This problem could be seen widely with independents rather than large activist groups. At this point, with the rapid spread of information, it is important for readers to discern what they are reading as journalism versus activism. For instance, the article “‘Speaking Freely’: Partisanship and ideology” from free speech activist group The Fire could easily be misread as a news article. Yet, its information regarding free speech on college campuses can be used as a valuable resource. News articles and activist resources have different purposes, both important to human rights issues. I believe that just because something is coming from an activists’ perspective, does not mean that their entire argument can be discredited. Journalists covering human rights issues have to make the personal choice whether or not to lean on the side of advocacy in their coverage. An Atlantic article titled“America’s Many Divides Over Free Speech” is much like The Fire article in that it breaks down information into easier-to-digest chunks. While the activist group’s article focused on the “wrongdoings” of free speech violations, The Atlantic article looked at the many sides of the free speech debate in America.

How Journalists Cover Human Rights

“Journalism, Media and the Challenge of Reporting on Human Rights” by the International Council on Human Rights Policy delves into the role of journalists, governmental organizations, and human rights organizations in covering human rights violations globally.

The report concludes that most journalists believe that human rights issues are covered just as well and fully as any other story. They do not believe that human rights stories are more important than others. Journalists can also be prone to portraying issues as “good versus evil” and may not always be as accurate as they should be (p. 113). The report cites specific problem areas:

Ignorance of what human rights are: Journalists are not familiar with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and do not know the difference between laws of war and human rights law (p. 114).

Confusion about where human rights are: Journalists may not realize that human rights violations are happening right in their own countries (p.115).

Don’t understand the scope: Human rights aren’t as narrow as political and civil rights; there are violations within the social, economic, and cultural spectrums as well (p. 115).

Fear of partisanship: Many journalists feel like they have an obligation to report on the pro-human rights side. Other feel they need to be as objective as possible. The report notes that objectivity can be a limiting position to be in (p. 115).

Battle for space: Deeper coverage is lacking in a fast paced, breaking news obsessed media. More of the focus is put on reporting incidents filled with sensationalism (p. 116).

“The dialogue between the media and human rights organisations is strengthening and reflects a greater seriousness about human rights coverage on the part of many people in the media,” the report states. “These are considerable steps forward. Much more should be done.” (p. 117)

The report then gives recommendations to journalists, media editors, government organizations, and human rights organizations. It says that Journalists should be given more resources in order to be informed on human rights issues, such as pre-entry courses, in-house training, and editorial programs. There should be higher standards of diversity within the newsroom as well as safety precautions for journalists going into dangerous areas. There should be a network of journalists working together to further understand local conditions. Additionally, journalists should be familiarized with human rights terminology and ethical reporting (p. 118/119). Governments and international organizations should remove all obstacles that hinder journalists from reporting on human rights violations. Safeguards shouls be put into place in regard to government funded journalistic entities (p. 119/120).

Because journalists thrive on free speech and openness, it makes sense that they should be well informed on the subject. A Wired article by Dan Gillmor titled “When Journalists Must Not Be Objective” goes as far as to say that if a journalist does not have a bias towards openness and freedom, they should not call themselves journalists. The article continues to question the ways we receive news in the age of net neutralist and the curation of viewable content by Facebook and other platforms. If news organizations rely on platforms such as Facebook and Google, then they are succumbing to the editing power of those platforms. “Do journalists understand that the Internet is getting new editors, namely the people who work for those companies?” Gillmor said. Gillmor claims that journalists do not do a good job at covering freedom of speech violations, citing Comcast’s (an opponent of net neutrality) ownership of NBC. I agree with Gillmor to an extent; I do not believe that journalists do enough to cover this issue, especially online. Conflicts of interest can make the situation more difficult for a network such as NBC to report on Comcast’s want to take down net neutrality.

White nationalist Richard Spencer at a conference. Photo credit: UPI/Barcroft Images.

Yet other news outlets still report on these issues, such as The Guardian. Lois Beckett’s article “White nationalist to control which journalists cover Florida ‘free speech’ event” discusses Richard Spencer’s “free speech” event, hosted at the University of Florida. Since the white nationalist rented the space, the university claimed to have no involvement with it. The situation itself is sadly ironic; some journalists are barred from covering an event supposedly supporting free speech. This is an example of how people twist the definition of “free speech” around to fit to their own ideas. Spencer has the right to speak freely, yet is barring the speech of journalists who have equal rights to report on it.

The Quest for the Truth: When Journalism Becomes Treason

Julain Assage in 2015 at the Ecuadorian Embassy. (Yui Mok/PA Wire)

“From Ellsberg to Snowden: Is It Journalism or Treason?” by Tony Pederson discusses the ramifications of releasing classified information that one deems important for the public to know. In his conclusion, he notes that the actions of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have now made it harder for any federal shield law to be passed. Julian Assange is the creator of WikiLeaks, a website dedicated to disclosing confidential government and corporate information with no screening or filtering procedure. The site gained traction by 2007 with the release of a video Assange dubbed “Collateral Murder”, in which two Apache helicopters allegedly shot unarmed Journalists in Iraq.

In 2013, former CIA employee Edward Snowden leaked information from the NSA that revealed government surveillance on United States citizens. He met with journalists and gave them the information to publish as they pleased. While Snowden technically still committed treason, I believe that the way he went about disclosing the information can be more respected. Assange essentially completed an “information dump” with little regard to who could access it. Thus, enemies of the state could view classified files as well as identifying information on government employees. Now, the United States is trying to arrest Assange, as noted in The Guardian’s article “Arresting Julian Assange is a priority, says US attorney general Jeff Sessions”.

I believe that journalists still need to act as a check on the government, and that our right is being threatened as time goes on. People like Assange and Snowden hurt our credibility and anger the government further. Thus, I do believe that there is a line between journalism and treason, and that in order to not cross that line information needs to be handled by journalists that can review and redact any harmful information.

 

Pravit Rojanaphruk’s Quest for Free Speech in Thailand’s Regime

Thai journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk.

Thai journalist and CPJ 2017 International Press Freedom Award winner Pravit Rojanaphruk is known for writing stories about Thailand’s government. In his piece for The Guardian, “Thailand is turning into Juntaland – and we are resisting”, Rojanaphruk outlinesThailand’s “National Council for Peace and Order” (NCPO), known as the junta military. The junta demonstrated a coup May of 2014, and since then has enlisted anti-criticism laws and silenced the press. Rojanaphruk was detained in 2014 without charge and when released, he had to sign a release promising to receive junta’s permission before leaving Thailand, as well as “agreeing not to participate, aid, or lead an anti-junta movement.” In his article, he says that the junta is not allowing him to leave the country because he is “attacking” the NCPO. Rojanaphruk makes it very clear that his agreement does not bar him from criticizing the government, yet the NCPO still will not allow him to leave. “I have been criticising them continually for nearly two years now since the coup, both through my work as a journalist and on Facebook and Twitter,” Rojanaphruk writes. “This is what happens to a Thai journalist when you refuse to pretend that the military junta is legitimate.”

One example of his pieces that expose the junta for what it is, titled “Student activist jailed 2 and a half years for Lese Majeste”, discusses the arrest of a man who shared a controversial BBC Thai biography on Facebook. “Lese majeste”, meaning to insult a monarch or a ruler, is one of the main reasons that the junto arrests its citizens. According to the article, the man was one of 2,600 others arrested for sharing the same video.

Journalists like Rojanaphruk are fearless in their efforts to expose human rights violations. Rojanaphruk’s work is influential in that it helps expose the junto and its laws barring free speech and freedom of the press. Since Rojanaphruk is still active criticizing the government, he is making other countries like the United States aware of the injustices going on in Thailand.

 

 

Racial Stereotyping and the First Amendment

 

Protestors gather in downtown Chicago for the “Black Lives Matter” movement on July 9, 2016. (Michael Tercha / Chicago Tribune)

In regards to freedom of expression, race stereotyping often escalates and limits the degrees in which protesters of color can safely express themselves. The “Black Lives Matter” protests were in reaction to racial stereotyping. This stereotyping continued in the protests, where police and people online treated the African American protestors like criminals.

Steven Chapman’s Chicago Tribune article, “Black demands and white fears”, discusses the stereotype of “African-Americans as a constant threat to white safety and prosperity.” Chapman compares the criticism for the Black Lives Matter movement–namely “disruptive marches, angry rhetoric, denunciations of police conduct and supposed incitement of violence”–to the criticism for President Obama. He notes that critics mask their racial biases with a concern for safety when the opposite is apparent. Obama critics have called the peace-promoting president a “political thug”. It is behaviors like these that limit the rights to assembly for people of color. Since they will most likely be stereotyped as “thugs” or “violent”, then they may not even feel safe to express their beliefs in public.

At the university level, there have been tensions regarding free speech and race relations. Reporter Sonali Kohli makes the argument in her LA Times analysis, “Free speech can be a way to avoid talking about race” that discussions about free speech that arise from offensive racial stereotyping in universities mask the true issues. Some argue that stereotyping via offensive Halloween costumes is a right under the freedom of expression clause in the First Amendment. However, Kohli argues that one cannot ignore the historical implications of offensive costumes such as black face. This does implement an important question: does free speech trump all, regardless of the overt racial stereotyping?

Why and How Journalists Need to Bear Witness

Robert Cohen describes what he believes is the responsibility of a journalist in his New York Times piece, “A Journalist’s ‘Actual Responsibility.'” In the article, Cohen simply states  that “to bear witness means being there.” He believes that journalists need to be physically present in the situation they are covering in order to be able to fully tell the story. He referenced his past experiences in Iran as an example of being there and experiencing turmoil firsthand. When a journalist experiences such vivid violence and terror, it stays with them. Cohen admits that part of him is still back in Iran, and furthermore feels guilty that he is now far away from those who still need their stories told.

Vice President Al Gore hugging Laura Ling during their arrival in California on August 5, 2009. (AFP/Robyn Beck/Getty Images)

I agree with Cohen’s view on bearing witness. He’s right in saying that it is impossible to truly depict war and suffering if the journalist isn’t there to experience it.  When on site, journalists have the power to tell the truths of those living in these conditions. I can see, however in my chosen human right issue, the possible danger of going into such volatile countries like North Korea. In 2009, American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee were captured by North Korean soldiers for entering the country without visas. As recounted in NPR’s “Ling Sisters Recount Laura’s Capture in North Korea” , the journalists were covering North Korean defectors fleeing from the dictatorship to China. North Korea is known for its distrust of journalists and little regard for free speech, so it does not come as a shock that the journalists were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor before they were pardoned months later. The journalists did not only want to aggregate news from the safety of their homes; instead they went to the border, wanting to expose the conditions of North Korean defectors. I commend Ling and Lee for their bravery, but I do understand that not every journalist has it in them to face a country that could kill them for expressing their right to free speech.

 

Internet Censorship Statistics Across the Globe

Freedom on the Net 2016 report on internet freedom.

“Silencing the Messenger: Communication Apps Under Pressure,” an annual report by Freedom on the Net, found that global internet freedom declined in 2016 and 67 percent of internet users live in countries where government criticism will lead to censorship. That percentage surprised me as an American citizen. If I am criticizing the government online, I do not fear for my safety or worry that I am going to get censored. In other countries that is not the case.

In a survey by the Pew Research Center titled “Global Support for Principle of Free Expression, but Opposition to Some Forms of Speech” Americans were the most supportive of free speech, press freedom, and internet freedom. 71 percent of those surveyed in the United States said that it is very important that people can say what they want without state/gov’t censorship. The percentages declined slightly when asked about government intervention in reporting the news and using the internet but overall were high.

In the same survey, Americans surveyed above the global median in support of freedom of expression.

Since 2013, the number of countries who have arrested people for social media usage has increased by 50 percent. In Saudi Arabia, individuals could get arrested for “spreading atheism” on social media.

While researching the different levels of internet censorship across the globe, I found that overall China has the highest levels of censorship. Freedom on the Net found that China scored the highest on the internet freedom scale, with a score of 88 out of 100 (0=free and 100=least free). The Washington Post’s article, “China’s scary lesson to the world: Censoring the Internet works” goes into detail in describing the ways the Chinese government has put up “the Great Firewall” in order to keep citizens unaware of most of the Western influences. What I found most interesting was that in China, Google is completely banned and has been since 2002. Through China’s heavily censored search engine, internet users are unable to find anything that has to do with Tiananmen Square or the famous “tank man” photograph. According to the Chinese government, it does not exist. The concept that entire pieces of a nation’s history can be forcefully erased by its own government is frightening.

This censorship in China effects businesses as well. The U.S. government listed China as a trade barrier in the 2016 U.S. Office of the Trade Representative Report.

All of these statistics opened my eyes on how far governments like China are willing to go in order to keep its citizens in the dark. The United States is a country built on freedom of expression separate from the government intervention, so it is still shocking that other governments hold so much power over something seemingly universal like the internet.

History of Human Rights

United for Human Rights defines human rights as “the rights to which everyone is entitled—no matter who they are or where they live—simply because they are alive.” This definition is broad, but it highlights the core message: every human deserves to be treated equally and should be granted the same rights.

The broad scope of human rights is narrowed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an outline of thirty articles defining rights such as free speech, the right to marry, and anti sex-trafficking. The United Nations created this document as a response to the terrors of World War II in 1948. Many countries signed it and one could hope that all would adhere to the declaration. But that has yet to happen. In fact, there is no country that has fully and successfully implemented every article in the declaration. But why could that be?

When one looks at the history of human rights, it is clear that humans have historically disagreed what is and is not necessary to live. There are vastly different cultures that value different things. Some parts of the world value social and community responsibility over individual needs and vice versa. Humans are biased. Before the 17th century, attempts to establish “human rights” led to more selfish reasonings that did not adhere to the principal of true equality.

Even when the United States’ Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, it would take another 150 years for the country to come close to abiding by what is now considered the baseline of human rights.

A protester in Ferguson, Mo. throwing tear gas back at the police. (Robert Cohen/St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

It’s easy to talk about countries not complying with the Declaration of Human Rights as if it were in a distant past. Yet, we see countless times today that “civilized”, first world countries are far from creating the world that the Declaration sets out to achieve. For example, the local government in Ferguson, Mo. was told by the Justice Department to overhaul its entire criminal justice system in the wake of the 2014 protests. According to the Justice Department, the city had used excessive police force and violated the constitution. The Justice Department declared that the city was more interested in using its police and courts to make money, “a place where officers stopped and handcuffed people without probable cause, hurled racial slurs, used stun guns without provocation, and treated anyone as suspicious merely for questioning police tactics.”

Investigating Media Censorship in Foreign Countries

Civilians walk past a mock grave for free speech in Singapore on June 18, 2013. (Edgar Su/Reuters)

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

—Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I believe that if the story is important enough, then it needs to be told. Tom McCarthy’s film, Spotlight, follows the lives of Boston Globe journalists as they uncover sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. Tensions rise as Michael Rezendes becomes anxious to get the story out, while the editor implores him to wait until the have all information necessary to publish a long, in-depth expose. Much like these journalists, my passion for uncovering an issue that is pertinent to the rights of the people could override my concerns for my own job or reputation. While I have never been in such a situation, I know myself well enough to believe that my emotions can get in the way of being “neutral” on a subject. Like Rezendes in Spotlight, I can see myself trying to get a story out as soon as I find information even though it may not be the right time.

My topic of freedom of expression and the ability to seek information can be a dangerous one. Governments that censor information like Russia have been historically abusive towards journalists. The documentary “Dying to Tell a Story” gives the perspectives of multiple investigative journalists that have risked their lives in order to expose human rights violations. The question of whether or not I would be willing to risk my life like those in “Dying to Tell A Story” is complicated. On one hand, I do not think I’m the kind of person who is willing to sit back and allow censorship to continue, yet on the other I am aware that countries as volatile as North Korea are very dangerous places, and I would have to think long and hard about the ramifications if I were to investigate them. 

Tamoa Calzadilla, former investigations editor at Ultimas Noticias

An investigative piece conducted by the Columbia Journalism Review titled “21st-Century Censorship” discusses the multitudes of governments that limit speech and the right to seek information on the internet. Journalist Tamoa Calzadilla noted that the United States and Europe are not fully aware of the scope of censorship in countries like Venezuela. “Instead, they [Venezuelan government] buy the newspaper, they sue the reporters and drag them into court, they eavesdrop on your communications and then broadcast them on state television. This is censorship for the 21st century.”

Much like the reporters in Spotlight, Calzadilla made the choice that human rights were more important than her job’s reputation. Furthermore, corruption seeped so deep that sometimes it was hard to trust fellow media outlets, as they could be bribed by the government to censor themselves. In Spotlight, the moral integrity of the Boston Globe was put into question when the reporters discovered that the paper had also been complicit in burying the initial information about the priests. In her case, Calzadilla resigned from her position when the government was taking over the media. The article goes on to describe other governments’ ways of censoring the media: Beijing takes violent action against editors and the Venezuelan government stealthily controls communication under the guise of a liberal democracy.