Selected extracts from We
the Media by Dan Gillmor
“We freeze some moments in time. Every culture
has its frozen moments, events so important and personal that they transcend
the normal flow of news.
Americans of a certain age, for example, know
precisely where they were and what they were doing when they learned that
President Franklin D. Roosevelt died. Another generation has absolute clarity
of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. And no one who was older than a baby on
September 11, 2001, will ever forget hearing about, or seeing, airplanes
exploding into skyscrapers.
In 1945, people gathered around radios for the
immediate news, and stayed with the radio to hear more about their fallen
leader and about the man who took his place. Newspapers printed extra editions
and filled their columns with detail for days and weeks afterward. Magazines
stepped back from the breaking news and offered perspective.
Something similar happened in 1963, but with a
newer medium. The immediate news of Kennedy’s death came for most via
television; I’m old enough to remember that heart- breaking moment when Walter
Cronkite put on his horn- rimmed glasses to glance at a message from Dallas and
then, blinking back tears, told his viewers that their leader was gone. As in
the earlier time, newspapers and magazines pulled out all the stops to add
detail and context.
September 11, 2001, followed a similarly grim
pattern. We watched—again and again—the awful events. Consumers of
News learned the what about the attacks,
thanks to the televi- sion networks that showed the horror so graphically. Then
we learned some of the how and why as print publications and
thoughtful broadcasters worked to bring depth to events that defied mere words.
Journalists did some of their finest work and made me proud to be one of them.
But something else, something profound, was
happening this time around: news was being produced by regular people who had
something to say and show, and not solely by the “official” news organizations
that had traditionally decided how the first draft of history would look. This
time, the first draft of history was being written, in part, by the former
audience. It was possible—it was inevitable—because of new publishing tools
available on the Internet.
Another kind of reporting emerged during those
appalling hours and days. Via emails, mailing lists, chat groups, personal web
journals — all nonstandard news sources — we received valuable context that the
major American media couldn’t, or wouldn’t, provide.
We were witnessing—and in many cases were part
of—the future of news.”
“This book is about journalism’s transformation
from a 20th century mass-media structure to something profoundly more
grassroots and democratic. It’s a story, first, of evolutionary change. Humans
have always told each other stories, and each new era of progress has led to an
expansion of storytelling.
This is also a story of a modern revolution,
however, because technology has given us a communications toolkit that allows
anyone to become a journalist at little cost and, in theory, with global reach.
Nothing like this has ever been remotely possible before.”
“In the
20th century, making the news was almost entirely the province of journalists;
the people we covered, or “news- makers”; and the legions of public relations
and marketing people who manipulated everyone. “
“Tomorrow’s news reporting and production will
be more of a conversation, or a seminar. The lines will blur between producers
and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we’re only beginning to grasp
now. The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone’s voice,
not just the few who can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses,
launch satellites, or win the government’s permission to squat on the public’s
airwaves.”
“We can’t afford more of the same. We can’t
afford to treat the news solely as a commodity, largely controlled by big
institutions. We can’t afford, as a society, to limit our choices.”
Journalists
We will learn we are part of something new, that
our readers/listeners/viewers are becoming part of the process. I take it for
granted, for example, that my readers know more than I do—and this is a
liberating, not threatening, fact of journalistic life. Every reporter on every
beat should embrace this. We will use the tools of grassroots journalism or be
consigned to history. Our core values, including accu- racy and fairness, will
remain important, and we’ll still be gatekeepers in some ways, but our ability
to shape larger conversations—and to provide context—will be at least as
important as our ability to gather facts and report them.
Newsmakers
The rich and powerful are discovering new
vulnerabilities, as Nacchio learned. Moreover, when anyone can be a jour-
nalist, many talented people will try—and they’ll find things the professionals
miss. Politicians and business people are learning this every day. But
newsmakers also have new ways to get out their message, using the same
technologies the grassroots adopts. Howard Dean’s presidential cam- paign failed,
but his methods will be studied and emulated because of the way his campaign
used new tools to engage his supporters in a conversation. The people at the
edges of the communications and social networks can be a news- maker’s
harshest, most effective critics. But they can also be the most fervent and
valuable allies, offering ideas to each other and to the newsmaker as well.
The former audience
Once mere consumers of news, the audience is
learning how to get a better, timelier report. It’s also learning how to join
the process of journalism, helping to create a massive con- versation and, in
some cases, doing a better job than the professionals. For example, Glenn
Reynolds, a.k.a. “Insta- pundit,” is not just one of the most popular
webloggers; he has amassed considerable influence in the process. Some
grassroots journalists will become professionals. In the end, we’ll have more
voices and more options.
Final Thoughts from Dan
Gillmor
“The rise of the citizen journalist will help us listen. The ability of
anyone to make the news will give new voice to people who’ve felt voiceless—and
whose words we need to hear. They are showing all of us—citizen, journalist,
newsmaker—new ways of talking, of learning.
In the end, they may help spark a renaissance of the notion, now
threatened, of a truly informed citizenry. Self-government demands no less, and
we’ll all benefit if we do it right.
Let’s have this conversation, for everyone’s sake.”
