O lançamento de um novo espaço de jornalismo-dos-cidadãos (Cit-J), o neaju.com, levou os seus responsáveis a enviar um e-mail a docentes e a investigadores de várias escolas de jornalismo do Estados Unidos, onde se podia ler o seguinte:
“As a mentor to future journalists, I am certain you are aware of increasing profiteering and sensationalism that is increasingly dominating American journalism, often at the expense of the value we all hold near and dear to our hearts – journalistic integrity. It is for that reason that we’ve created the first true citizen journalism site on the Internet“
Jeremy Littau, estudante de Doutoramento na Universidade do Missouri, decidiu que a oportunidade era interessante para abrir um debate sobre o que é o ‘verdadeiro’ jornalismo-dos-cidadãos; trocou e-mails como Vadim Gorelik (da Neaju) e escreveu um post onde diz:
This is not meant to criticize those doing what they’re doing over at Neaju, but I believe that the sentiments expressed by Vadim get to the heart of a lot of debates we’re having in both the industry and academia about the citizen journalism phenomenon. Is it journalism? Is it news? Are they journalists or citizens doing journalism? What makes Timmy’s art class drawing journalism and not the latest refrigerator-magnet fare?
Vadim Gorelik respondeu:
for most of us, the issue is clear – the problems with journalism of the past say 5-10 years, have forced readers to turn to blogs as their source of news. Back in the analog days, blogs were called editorials, and appeared in every newspaper. But as journalism became what it is, and bloggers discovered that their services are in demand to report news, as well as to comment on it, they became the first massive wave of Internet’s citizen journalists.
Littau comentou (no post de Gorelik):
Nobody has a lock on what defines true journalism, so my point is that the debate itself is silly. So my feeling is put your product out there and judge it by how many people contribute and read.
I’m wholly uninterested in what constitutes “true” journalism; I tend to be way more interested in how to do “better” journalism. If that is happening at Neaju or anywhere else, that is good.
But the point is that these labels (including my search for better journalism) are purely subjective. Thus I don’t sell them as something more than they are. If you can find me a source that gives the once-and-for-all definition of journalism, be my guest.
Este é, de facto, um debate muito importante.
Num momento de alguma turbulência, é fácil perceber tendências que antecipam um futuro para o jornalismo num enquadramento de maior e mais rigoroso profissionalismo e tendências que antecipam o seu completo desaparecimento, por troca com uma rede de espaços colaborativos abertos à participação de (quase) todos.
Mas será que só é possível conceber soluções alternativas?
Será que o jornalismo está mesmo condenado?
Porque é assim tão inevitável o seu desaparecimento (e os ‘velórios sem defunto’ sucedem-se)?
E como enquadrar uma discussão sobre a ‘pureza’ relativa das intervenções amadoras no espaço mediático?
[Sugestão de partida encontrada no Common Sense Journalism]
Read Full Post »