Citizen Journalism

Quite simply, Citizen Journalism occurs ‘When members of the public- who are not journalists, engage in journalism'.

Essentially this means that individuals who are not qualified journalists are able to assist and play an active role in the process of collecting and reporting information and news. The idea behind the concept of citizen journalism is that the average person is able to use modern technology and produce a story which will then be distributed to others. Such stories may include newsworthy digital photos posted on a personal blog or newsworthy videos recorded and posted on websites such as YouTube or Facebook.

The rise of citizen journalism first occurred in the United States where citizens began questioning the coverage of events such as the U.S presidential election in 1988. Therefore Professional Journalists of that era began recruiting members of the public and requested for their point of view.

The technology of the 21st century has allowed the citizen journalist movement to flourish. With the introduction of social networking and blog sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, more and more individuals are subconsciously becoming citizen journalists by posting and responding to newsworthy stories.

Various worldwide tragedies such as September 11 2001 US Bombings and Bali Terror Attack in 2003 were reported with the assistance of citizen journalists. An abundance of news networks accepted images and video footage of the events from citizens, as it assisted them in producing the story. Furthermore Twitter played a vital role in the Australian Victorian Bushfires in 2009 and Iranian election protests in 2009 as individuals reported on the crisis before media could.

As I am a blogger and a frequent Facebook and Twitter user, I inevitably consider myself as a citizen journalist.

Religion's Interference?

It has become apparent that many groups (religious in particular) are attempting to censor certain information on the internet. One can believe that the grounds of internet censorship are to "protect" people from material deemed to be corrupted or dangerous.

However, exactly what should be deemed as corrupt or dangerous? Well, a typical answer would be some extreme sexually-related materials of course, but where does one draw the line?

The Australian government and indeed many religious organizations assume that overtly sexual or sexually violent material will corrupt all age groups (both the mature audiences as well as young), but in essence so can computer and video games- so should we stop purchasing these products? Although many computer games that are rated R are already restricted material in Australia, websites such as Amazon.com and Ebay.com sell these games. Films such as French film Baise Moi has also been restricted in Australia- but you can purchase the product on the internet. So, will the government restrict these websites too?

Although I would classify myself as a religious individual, it is to my dismay that many authoritative religious leaders want to impose their MORAL views on humanity as they feel they have the duty to do so. These morals, which tend to be in the interest of family values, do not just stay religious, so to speak, but they filter into politics.

Funny enough, Senator Steve Fielding (who is a devout Catholic and is apart of Family First) is not just a representative in the Senate, but is also ONE of SEVEN senators who holds the Balance of Power. It must be noted that the other six senators are either independent or apart of the Greens. While Fielding has ENORMOUS control in October 2008, he (due to his religious motives) announced that he wanted hard core pornography and fetish material blocked from the internet.

Should religion interfere with ones freedom of expression on the World Wide Web?

Hypocratic Government seeks to censor Australian Internet

The Age (2008) has label Kevin Rudd as a hypocritical leader as a year prior to the Beijing Olympics he reprimanded Chinese Authorities for a block on the internet. Rudd expressed his frustration by stating that "They should have nothing to fear by open digital links with the rest of the world during this important international celebration of sport." A year on, Rudd is attempting to implement similar standards on Democratic Australia, by blocking certain websites that the government deems as inappropriate.

What's your take on this? How would you feel if you could not freely surf the internet? What if you could not tweet on twitter or update your status on facebook? Do you feel that your human rights are being trampled on?

Australia- the next totalitarian society?

As the World Wide Web is not owned by a single organization, it is quite difficult to answer the simple question: 'how many websites are there’? After a number of calculations, Boutell.com states, that as of February 2007, there were 29.7 billion pages on the World Wide Web. Netcraft believes that '46 million websites were added to the Internet between January and April 2009'. These staggering figures show that more and more individuals are keen to generate and distribute information.

In the technologically advancing 21st Century, an abundance of this information is being distributed via social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. This, once unconventional way of news reporting, has now become a nifty tool which in many cases has outdone the mainstream news outlets. For instance, The Age (2009) reported that social networking sites were used during the Victorian Bushfires in 2008 as an ‘innovative online mapping tool to assess the risk of fires reaching peoples homes’. This notion comes to show that the World Wide Web is a fantastic way to share information.

So if the internet is such a resourceful tool, why is the Rudd government attempting to censor unlawful words, images, videos or even music?  While trying to protect children from sexual predators, as it has been said that parents fear that predators pose as minors on social networking sites, an article in The Boston Globe (2008) states that ‘it is not the Governments job to determine which ideas are harmful’. In defense, I totally agree! As an adolescent, in all honesty I can see eye to eye with many other individuals my age- ‘rules are meant to be broken’. Censor these particular websites and we will find ways around things! Furthermore, by censoring specific pages, does Rudd not see that billions of other pages could be destroyed, pages with content that can be ‘deemed as non-harmful?’

What happened to Australia- the democratic nation? Has it not occurred to the Australian government that they are rebuffing their citizens of basic fundamental human rights?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:

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.

If the Australian government feels that it’s ok to use social networking sights in time of disaster (such as the Bush Fires noted above), why censor the internet- declining its citizens of ‘receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media!’

Do you feel that the Australia is becoming a totalitarian state- one where government has complete control?