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?