Pakistan has been in the news quite a bit recently, and for those looking in the right places, a lot of this news has dealt with the internet and citizen journalism. I’m going to address two relevant stories in my next two posts: a New York Times effort to work with citizen journalists, and an attempt by the Pakistani government to silence the same critical individuals.
In November, the Times put out “a call for eyewitness photos, video, and text from Pakistan.” This request was intended to help the Times report on opposition protests being blocked by the Pakistani government. Users were encouraged to submit personal accounts as comments and to contact the Times with photo and video submissions. While there were a few videos linked in the comments, most responses seemed to come in text form, whether they were personal accounts or critiques of the Times’ coverage.
- Was this intended journalistic partnership successful for all parties involved?
- What does the most common response medium (text) say about the kinds of stories being told and the people telling them?
Come back soon for the Pakistan-YouTube debacle.
“A Call for Eyewitness Photos, Video and Text From Pakistan”
1 response so far ↓
Miguel Raul Perez // March 17, 2008 at 2:17 am
* Was this intended journalistic partnership successful for all parties involved?
First, I see this as an attempt by the NY Times to gain marketshare by gaining a competitive edge over its rivals by using “citizen journalists,” nothing more.
I think the NY Times had no choice but to rely on citizen journalists since the government’s media black out probably affected the fixers that they rely on in Pakistan. The NY times needed to report on the protests and they found their solution by holding a cattle-call for media related to the protests that they couldn’t have obtained otherwise.
Simple economics. To keep its competitive edge over its rivals, it used “citizen journalists.”
So, do I think that this was successful for both parties? Yes. Definitely. The NY Times was able to gather media from Pakistan that they wouldn’t have been able to get and with that they undoubtedly raised their web hits as consumers sought media related to the protests. The “citizen journalists” also got to dissent against their government through an American news site that gets more page views than all other top 5 US newspapers by circulation.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/nytimes.com
http://www.burrellesluce.com/top100/2007_Top_100List.pdf
The NY Times just needed a way to consolidate its market share by employing “citizen journalism” so that it did not lose net traffic against the other news papers’ sites.
Business aside, both parties won. The Times got to keep its net traffic and the protesters found an outlet.
Miguel Raul Perez
Senior
Robinson Secondary School
Fairfax, VA
Leave a Comment