A win for citizen journalists everywhere

In 1948, George W. Polk, an American journalist and CBS correspondent, was slain while on assignment in Greece. At the time, Polk was covering the country’s tumultuous civil war. It was in Greece that Polk’s "status as a symbol of journalistic integrity" was solidified by his critical reporting on both of the warring parties – the right-leaning Greek government and the Communists.

In 1949, in commemoration of Polk’s death, Long Island University unveiled the George Polk Award for outstanding radio and television journalism. The Polk Award was intended to compliment the Pulitzer Prize – which honours outstanding print journalism in newspaper publications.

Since this time, the Polk prize has grown to represent one of the highest honours in American journalism. One does not have to look beyond the likes of past Polk prize winners - Christiane Amanpour, Walter Cronkite, and Carl Bernstein, to grasp the quality of journalism that this award honours.

This February, decades after Polk’s death, the 2009 award winners were announced. Interestingly, among the numerous honours, the George Polk Award for Videography was given to a work produced anonymously.

The feat sent shockwaves through the journalistic community. In fact, one critic wrote, ““Anonymous” wins a Polk Award? What’s going on here?”

The answer is citizen journalism.

Following the disputed re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2009, dissenters took to the streets of Tehran. In the midst of one protest, 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan was shot dead. Reportedly, Agha-Soltan was targeted by a pro-government militant.

Thanks to the quick thinking of one bystander, the entire incident was captured on a cell phone. In the Polk prize-winning clip, Agha-Soltan lays dying on the street as fellow protestors rush to her aid.

(WARNING: The video does contain graphic content).


Neda Agha Soltan Shot in Iran
Uploaded by ART1988. - News videos from around the world.

In the peak of last summer’s digital activism movement, the video was uploaded to the Internet and went viral as it was shared across cyberspace. Soon after, this work of a citizen journalist was picked up by traditional mainstream media institutions across the world - who were barred from entering the country by the Iranian government.




The overwhelming international exposure granted Iran's pro-democratic Green Movement the attention of the world community. As well, the video succeeded in elevating the status of citizen journalists amongst skeptics.

However, there will always be critics. In this case, they are traditionalists who believe that the individuals who participate in this type of reporting are actually “bystanders — not journalists. Just good bystanders.”

However, upon recognition of the intensity and resonance of the video, John Darnton, the new Curator of the Polk Awards, defended his choice. Darnton said, “Isn’t that the definition of news? Something that gets people talking and thinking and reveals something?”

Interestingly, this debate comes at a time when the professional status of journalists is being called into question by advocates of citizen–generated media.

Despite the contention, this Polk Award is an undeniable win for citizen journalists everywhere. The prize, founded on the principle of journalistic integrity, brings credibility to the citizen media movement and grants it official recognition as a legitimate journalistic force.

They say YouTube; we say WhoseTube?

It was a textbook case of a video gone viral.

In 2006, the American band OK Go made their now unmistakable “Here It Goes Again” music video and posted it on YouTube. The video, filmed in a single continuous take, featured the band performing an elaborately choreographed dance on treadmills.

At the time, the band knew their actions were in clear violation of their contract with EMI – one of the four “major labels” that dominate the recorded music industry. Regardless of the obvious breach of contract, the band was not willing to let EMI dictate their doings and chose to go ahead with the project. Amazingly, the video went viral.

Just six days in, the video had 1 million views. Not soon after, the infectious work inspired others in the global cyberspace community to get in on the action.



As of today, the original video posted stands at nearly 50,000,000 views.

Damian Kulash Jr., OK Go’s lead singer and guitarist explained that “To the band, Here It Goes Again” was a successful creative project.” However, “To the record company, it was a successful, completely free advertisement.”

Greed is an attribute the world’s media conglomerates are typically aligned with. In light of the economic hardship plaguing the industry today, EMI grew to envision the music video – once only valued for its advertising potential, as a prospective source of revenue.

Immediately, the major labels began demanding cash from YouTube for the use of ‘their’ contractually-endowed material. In the end, YouTube agreed to pay EMI a stipend for each video stream; however, there is a catch. Once these videos are embedded elsewhere, EMI receives no such revenue.

For this reason alone, the feat of the viral video may become a rarity in the near future. At least if EMI gets its way.

As of late, the global media conglomerate has adopted a pragmatic approach to the situation at hand. Quite simply, according to Kulash, “YouTube and EMI have actually made it harder to share videos.”

How? A little something they like to call non-embeddable videos.

This means that while one can still watch OK Go’s music videos on YouTube, one can no longer embed these videos onto their own sites, blogs, etc. (Note: Due to the “embedding disabled by request” function on YouTube, I was unable to embed OK Go’s video into this blog).

In his Friday Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Kulash expressed concern in regards to his label’s hardliner stance.

He feels that by outlawing the spread of this content, EMI is singlehandedly violating the founding principles of Web 2.0.

“This isn’t how the Internet works. Viral content doesn’t spread just from primary sources like YouTube or Flickr. Blogs, Web sites and video aggregators serve as cultural curators, daily collecting the items that will interest their audiences the most. By ignoring the power of these tastemakers, our record company is cutting off its nose to spite its face.”

By discounting the power of a Web 2.0-empowered audience, is EMI making a huge mistake? Kulash seems to think so.

“[EMI] needs to recognize the basic mechanics of the Internet. Curbing the viral spread of videos isn’t benefiting the company’s bottom line, or the music it’s there to support. The sooner record companies realize this, the better — though I fear it may already be too late.”

Is a backlash already brewing? Will the people rise up to reclaim YouTube? Only time will tell.

Watch what you tweet

Just this week, Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, got himself into a little hot water over comments he posted to his Twitter account. While the international community may have grown accustomed to Rogozin’s antics at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, which include hanging a poster of Joseph Stalin in his ambassadorial office, his latest anecdotes in the “twittersphere” are raising new concerns.

In reference to the planned U.S. installation of anti-missile interceptors in Romania, Rogozin tweeted, “The Americans and their allies again want to surround the den of the Russian bear? How many times must they be reminded that this is dangerous?”

However, Rogozin did not stop there.

“The bear will come out,” he furthered, and “kick the ass of these miserable hunters.” Undoubtedly, the “hunters” Rogozin is referring to are the United States, NATO, and their allies.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Rogozin has engaged in such tactics via-Twitter. In fact, Rogozin is infamous for tweeting insulting comments in respect to others in the international community.

On the micro-blogging site, Rogozin has consistently pointed out NATO failures, has labeled the thinking of Western leaders as “irrational,” and even called former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko a “loser.”

The politics of Twitter are undeniable.

The New York Times reported that from PR to trash talking, many believe Rogozin’s Twitter activity is all part of a greater scheme cooked up by the Kremlin. Revaz Beshidze, the Georgian representative to NATO, is one of those who believe this is the case.

According to Beshidze, “he is implementing strict instructions from Moscow.” The Georgian diplomat implied that Rogozin’s sole purpose is to bully the West in its own institutional backyard.

David J. Kramer, the former deputy assistant secretary of state in George W. Bush’s administration described Rogozin’s actions saying, “His job is virtually to drop rhetorical bombs on NATO. As for where Rogozin’s tweets fit in, Kramer said, “His public profile runs counter to any sense that Russia is serious about improving relations with NATO.”

While Rogozin is undeniably pushing the boundaries of Twitter, there are slim to no guidelines which specify only “diplomatic niceties” are allowed.

While we struggle to understand the politics at work behind the scenes, this instance remind us that public social networking sites are always open to the manipulative forces of governments.

Tea and the future of print media with Jay Rosen

Apple’s newest gadget – the iPad, was unveiled on Jan. 27. The hype and hope surrounding this latest Apple product was infectious to say the least.

Everyone from tech-savvy fanatics to die-hard advocates of traditional print media were cheerleaders at the iPad’s introduction into the mediascape.

However, when Jay Rosen sat down with The Economist for tea, and to discuss the glorified potential of this newest technology, he seemed relatively immune to the buzz.



Rosen is a journalism professor at New York University (NYU). As well, he is a highly sought-after blogger and media critic whose opinion is not taken lightly.

As Rosen unpacked and subsequently debunked the hype and hope of iPad romanticism during his interview, it became very clear very quickly that perhaps too much greatness was expected of this medium.

This defeatist sentiment was only reiterated as Rosen offered his take on the burning question on the mind of every journalist and publisher: Will the iPad save the ailing print media industry that is desperate for a payday?

Interestingly, Rosen doesn’t seem to think so.

But why?

Well, according to Rosen, a significant amount of the iPad’s success “depends on the network of people who become the users.” Essentially, the user has to like it.

In regards to this, Rosen is unsure of how the tech-savvy masses, who have blossomed in their active role in modern social media, will react to the iPad’s old school ‘sit back, relax and enjoy the media’ feel.

Moreover, today, user-generated content ranks among the most popular content on the web. As well, along with user-generated content comes: user-generated filtering, user-generated organization, user-generated distribution and user-generated commentary. It is clear that internet users are making use of the power granted by social media.

Furthermore, the iPad is without a camera and videotaping capabilities, and only equipped with a barely workable keyboard. Thus, this ‘new’ technology is very unlike the Web 2.0 world we’ve grown accustomed to.

For this reason, Rosen believes that the iPad “is taking us back in web time to the read-only web.” He said that this newest tablet is “restoring people to the days when they were just the audience… when they were just the consumers of content.”

While the traditional print and publishing media are enthralled to “bring back the experience of sitting back with the media and enjoying the wonderful productions,” one must question whether this logic is outdated and if the media industry is out of touch with consumers.

Ultimately, Rosen is skeptical of whether the masses will respond positively to their demotion to merely a passive audience member.

What it comes down to is that the media is hoping the iPad, which has the capacity to charge users for content, will help the floundering traditional print media corporations - who have witnessed the internet take a sizable bite out of their profits.

However, with all the free content online, Rosen said that the media should concern itself with having the highest quality of content that is of value to its readers, rather than the presentation of that content - on e-readers, the Kindle, or the iPad.

According to Rosen, the media resorts to “magical thinking, deliverance by new devices, and business models” because “actually producing high quality content is a lot harder.”