Chapter 1: Introduction

These three functions enable audiences to be involved in three of the four stages of the news process: newsgathering, dissemination and responding but once again the second stage of production is beyond reach. There are some exceptions to this such as data collaboration but in the main audiences are expected to react to the news and be sources of information as Singer et al (2011) also found.

Although other research suggests that organisations use social media networks to promote their brand and drive traffic to their website (Broersma and Graham, 2011; Phillips, 2011) this study found that this was largely the approach of news organisations rather than individual journalists. The news organisations used more traditional methods of automated headlines with a link to the website whereas journalists took a more informal approach and often did not include links in their story or promote upcoming editions of the paper. By talking about what they were working on or using Twitter for live blogging they felt they were indirectly promoting the newspaper brand without explicitly directing people to the newspaper or website. This is supported by the findings of Dickinson (2011) who conducted interviews at the Leicester Mercury during the same period as this study. Dickinson found that journalists were aware of building a personal brand via Twitter as well as newsgathering and soliciting feedback via social media networks to stay closely connected to their audience.

In building a personal brand on social media networks journalists are moving away from the more traditional approach of presenting a neutral face of the news organisation they work for. It is clear from the results of this research that a growing number of journalists are crossing the line between professional and personal and indeed see this as beneficial to their work as a journalist rather than damaging. Although at both case study sites there were some condemning voices in the newsroom, journalists who had embraced social media networks were mostly speaking to readers in an informal tone and adding insights from their personal life. They were also engaging in two way interaction with readers rather than a one way communication model. This adds to the evidence that the traditional methods of communication are changing on social media networks and the news process is becoming socialised.

A significant finding from the content analysis and interviews was that individual journalists utilise Twitter for different means, depending on their personal preference but also their job role. Dickinson (2011) found that politics and business correspondents primarily talked about Twitter as a means to cultivate news sources whereas for sports correspondents it was a means to connect with readers. For Steensen (2011) sports journalists are more closely connected to entertainment and market-driven news than the professional ideals of hard news. His findings argue that in an online environment it may be appropriate for sports journalists to promote a new ideal to the professional ideology of social cohesion which is directed towards pleasing the participating part of the audience. It could therefore be surmised that it is more appropriate for a sports journalist to use social media networks as tools to communicate with readers and sports fans, than it would be for a hard news journalist such as a politics reporter. Indeed it may be more appropriate for a politics reporter to use social media networks as newsgathering and data collaboration tools than to engage in banter with readers. In this case of the Leicester Mercury the content analysis supported these demarcations with the rugby correspondent having a far higher level of interactivity than the politics correspondent.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that social media networks are having a variable impact on the role of journalists as traditional gatekeepers. Instead of being a platform where the two actors converge to share, comment on and verify information, as outlined in Chapter 2, social media networks are platforms where audiences and journalists converge to share information, comment on information and occasionally collaborate. Traditional methods remain dominant but a change is happening at an individual level. Journalists are communicating more frequently with readers, taking their feedback on board and becoming more accountable. This communication is public and informal in approach, framing journalists as ordinary, fallible individuals rather than authoritarian gatekeepers.

The evolution of the internet and its current guise as Web 2.0 has for many given rise to a new breed of cyber village correspondent known as the citizen journalist. Equipped with little more than a mobile phone and an inquisitive nature this former audience (Gillmor, 2006; Rosen, 2006) is providing valuable content for the news media (Allan, 2007; Newman, 2009). As illustrated in Chapter 5, audiences have a growing expectation (Bowman and Willis, 2003) to be involved in the news-making process and an increasing number are actively chasing discovery. This influx of fast user generated content is a potential resource lifeline for local British newspapers which have seen a continued decline in revenue and dramatic editorial job losses during the past decade, as outlined in Chapter 1. As explored in Chapters 6 and 9 the utilization of material provided free by the public has become a vital process in the production of local news for both civic and economic designs.

As discussed at length in Chapter 2 newspapers are increasingly “harnessing collective intelligence” (O’Reilly and Battelle, 2009, p.1) leading to the suggestion that news is becoming collaborative (Allan, 2007; Rusbridger, 2010). And for scholars and journalists alike this approach does not necessary undermine professional journalism, but instead strengthens it. As Reich (2008) maintains ordinary citizens can serve as a vital complement to mainstream journalism but not as its substitute. This leads to an arena in which a professional top down media organization “partners with or deliberately taps into the emerging participatory media culture online (bottom up) in order to produce some kind of co-creative, commons-based news platform” (Deuze, 2008, p.7).

This chapter aims to explore the development of collaborative journalism within a specific project located at one of the case study sites. The Leicester Mercury is the biggest selling daily newspaper of the Northcliffe Media publishing group but in 2011 faced year on year losses of 7.2 per cent (ABC figures, 2011). During the same year a pilot project was being trialled at the newspaper to incorporate the content of Leicester citizen journalism agency Citizens’ Eye into the Leicester Mercury and its website thisisleicestershire.co.uk. This chapter will explore the nature and impact of this partnership with several research questions in mind. The first set of findings are largely descriptive and aim to explore the nature of the partnership in line with the research question examined in Chapter 7 whilst focusing on the specifics of this unique project. Therefore RQ2a: What is the nature of Web 2.0 audience participation in British local newspapers? is interpreted in this chapter as follows:

Examining what motivates Leicester Mercury editorial managers to collaborate with non-professional content providers is also fundamental to this research in order to gain an insight into the influence of both economic and normative factors. This builds on the findings of Chapters 6 and 9 by again focusing on one specific, unique project. There are concerns amongst some scholars that collaborative journalism is being market driven rather than civic orientated (Banks and Humphreys, 2008; Paulussen et al, 2007) and audiences are being exploited for free content (Moretzsohn, 2006, Örnebring, 2008) enabling news organisations to cut back on staff. Rather than embracing citizen journalism with the civic aim of widening political engagement by encouraging a diversity of voices and debates on political matters, it may be more realistic to suggest that local British newspapers are utilising active readers as a form of free labour. However as explored in Chapters 6, 7 and 9 it can also be argued that it is possible for economic and civic obligations to co-exist albeit in conflict (Jenkins, 2008).

The second objective of this chapter is to situate the Citizens’ Eye collaboration project within this debate and gain an insight into the motivating factors of the Leicester Mercury to engage in this co-creative news process. In order to understand motivation, the value of the project to the newspaper must be measured to understand whether or not it is economically driven. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 9 value can have monetary and non-monetary worth, therefore this chapter seeks to explore which values apply to this particular project. RQ2b: What is the value of Web 2.0 audience participation in British local newspapers? has been tailored in this chapter to the more specific research question:

RQ2b: What is the value of the Citizens’ Eye project to the Leicester Mercury?

Incorporating content captured by the public into a local newspaper and its website - whether text, photographs, video or audio - has implications for the relationship between professional journalists and their customers/readers. The public has always been a source of information for journalists but under this new model the role of readers is being redefined as pro-sumers, contributors and collaborators (Domingo et al, 2008; Allan, 2007; Bowman and Willis, 2003). The balance of power is said to be changing (Benkler, 2006) and with it the gatekeeper role of journalists is being redefined (Singer, 1997). The third aspect of this case study therefore is to analyse the effect of the Citizens’ Eye project on the traditional gatekeeping role of journalists at the Leicester Mercury to further contextualise the findings of Chapter 10. This chapter will explore how user generated content is sourced, presented and moderated and the role gatekeeping plays in the news production process. This chapter seeks to explore Leicester Mercury journalists’ attitudes towards Citizens’ Eye and citizen journalism more broadly, as not all of the reporters were aware of the Citizens’ Eye pilot project. RQ3: How is Web 2.0 impacting on the role of journalists in local British newspapers as traditional gatekeepers? has therefore been interpreted in this chapter as:

This chapter aims to build upon the findings of Chapters 5, 6, 7,9 and 10 by focusing on a specific project at one of the case study sites. The findings have been drawn from interviews with journalists, readers and the editor of Leicestershire community news agency Citizens’ Eye. Further triangulation was achieved via news room observation.

As described in Chapters 4 the researcher spent three weeks at the Leicester Mercury during October 2010 and interviewed 20 participants, 19 of whom were editorial staff at the Leicester Mercury and one who was editor of Citizens’ Eye. The semi-structured interviews were based on the interview guide displayed in Appendix 2a and the relevant information about Citizens’ Eye was selected through the question topics discussed in the method sections of Chapters 7, 9 and 10. Each journalist was also asked about their knowledge of the Citizens’ Eye project and their attitude toward it. The Leicester Mercury editor, deputy editor and Citizens’ Eye project co-ordinator were directly involved with the pilot project along with the Citizens’ Eye editor. Many of the department heads and reporters had little knowledge of the Citizens’ Eye pilot and therefore their interviews were analysed only with regard to RQ3.

The researcher returned to the newspaper in June 2011, eight months after the initial period to interview the Leicester Mercury editor, Citizens’ Eye editor and Citizens’ Eye project co-ordinator for a second time to gain further insight into how the pilot was developing. The researcher also had further ongoing correspondence via email with the editor of Citizens’ Eye and Mark Charlton, project co-ordinator at the Leicester Mercury.

As outlined in Chapter 5 journalists at the Leicester Mercury are referred to in the results section by the letter L and the number of the interviewee, for example L3. Meanwhile readers are given the code LR and their interview number, for example LR3. In this chapter the editor of Citizens’ Eye John Coster has been assigned the code LM1 which indicates that he is part of the Leicester Mercury case study but he is neither a journalist nor a reader. M therefore represents the word miscellaneous.

12.3 Results

The findings present a detailed insight into an internal case study within one of the case study sites which is situated within a unique set of circumstances. Generalisations about the local British newspaper industry are therefore made with caution. Nether-the-less case studies remain a valuable method in so far as they illustrate frameworks for thinking about issues and focus on contemporary phenomenon such as the Citizens’ Eye collaborative pilot project.

The Leicester Mercury was established as a local newspaper in 1874 and today remains the flagship title of Northcliffe Media, with a readership of 54,000 according to the latest ABC figures. Meanwhile the newspaper’s associated website thisisleicestershire.co.uk receives 388,000 monthly unique users, an increase of 34 per cent year on year. The newspaper has an editorial staff of 60 and the website has one dedicated member of staff in Leicester and a broader web team based in Derby who look after a number of titles. In contrast, Citizens’ Eye is a non-professional, multimedia, independent news website established in 2008 which is made up of 18 issues based “agencies” (LM1) for people in Leicester. The individual agencies represent older people, asylum seekers, homelessness, ex offenders, disabilities, heritage and green issues - amongst others. The Citizens’ Eye network is made up of 450 volunteers with a core of 40 regular contributors. The organisation describes itself on its website citizenseye.org as: “People without professional journalism training using the tools of modern technology and the global distribution of the internet to create, augment or fact check media on their own or in collaboration with others”, (Citizens’ Eye, 2011). The website receives approximately 20,000 views a month and is run by “editor” John Coster (LM1) who also has no formal journalism training.

A relationship between the two organisations began in 2009 when the Leicester Mercury editor tasked a senior member of the editorial team, with building community news within the newspaper and on its website. During his research the journalist, who later became the Citizens’ Eye project co-ordinator, “stumbled across” (L14) Citizens’ Eye and decided it would be best practice to link up with the organisation which had networks across a number of communities, rather than try to create simultaneous networks. Citizens’ Eye editor John Coster is paid a small undisclosed “retainer” (LM1) from the Leicester Mercury for co-ordinating the volunteers on behalf of the newspaper.

Multimedia providers

Volunteers from Citizens’ Eye have access to six computers within the Leicester Mercury news room where they can upload multimedia content to the newspaper’s network including text, photographs, video and audio. From here it can be accessed by editorial staff on both the newspaper and website. Senior Citizens’ Eye volunteers hold regular editorial meetings with the Citizens’ Eye project co-ordinator Mark Charlton at the Leicester Mercury to pitch ideas.

The majority of the content provided is in the form of text, followed closely by photographs. There is also a small amount of video content, usually following a major event. In interviews, most journalists associated citizen journalism with photographs of breaking news events rather than text, citing as examples the London Bombings and the English Defence League march in Leicester, which took place during the research period. However due to their formal relationship with the Leicester Mercury, volunteers from Citizens’ Eye break this perceived trend by providing more text than is usually associated with citizen journalism.

This study has identified three ways in which Citizens’ Eye volunteers provide content for the newspaper and its website, each instilling the volunteer with a different role.

• 
  Source: Contacted by journalist for information, content or comment on a story. For example a quote or a photo of a fire.
  
• 
  Resource (independent and directed): Source story independently and create own content. Allocated a specific story by the newspaper news desk and asked to report on it. For example attending a ward meeting.
  

• 
  Collaborator: Working alongside a journalist to provide complementary coverage of a story, arranged in advance. For example providing video footage while journalists gather copy and photos.
  

The biggest area of participation for Citizens’ Eye volunteers is as a source and resource, as discussed later in this chapter. Their role as a collaborator is minimal and only occurs occasionally when a big event is planned in advance such as the Leicester Sky Ride City. This is an annual event to promote cycling in the city. Leicester Mercury editor Keith Perch (L3) explained that he had a meeting with Citizens’ Eye editor John Coster before the event to arrange for volunteers to take photographs in conjunction with Leicester Mercury photographers. However this type of collaboration was rare and not always successful. Keith Perch complained that many of the Citizens’ Eye photographers took similar photographs to Leicester Mercury photographers rather than complementing their coverage by standing in different locations or indeed covering other community events Leicester Mercury photographers could not get to that day. Using Citizens’ Eye volunteers as collaborators therefore appeared to be a largely a desire rather than a reality.

Furthermore the research detected four key publishing strands under the Leicester Mercury brand which facilitated Citizens’ Eye content (see Figure 12.1).

• 
  Wave supplement. A monthly pull-out supplement placed inside the Leicester Mercury. All text and photographs provided and uploaded by the Citizens’ Eye younger people agency. Pages subbed and designed by Leicester Mercury journalists.
  

• 
  Branded weekly page. A full page in the Leicester Mercury newspaper at least once a week, but up to three times. The page may contain advertising. The text and photos are provided and uploaded by Citizens’ Eye. The Citizens’ Eye logo is always published prominently on the page (see Figure 12.4).
  

• 
  Branded newspaper content. Additional content (text and/or photos) which cannot fit onto the dedicated Citizens’ Eye page or a harder news story which may be placed as a stand-alone story elsewhere in the newspaper. It will be published with the Citizens’ Eye logo. This happens on an ad hoc basis.
  

• 
  Website content. Some of the newspaper content is automatically uploaded to the thisisleicestershire.co.uk website and this may include any text/photos provided by Citizens’ Eye. This does not usually carry the logo. The Leicester Mercury web editor may also manually upload text, photos and video by Citizens’ Eye onto the website. Also ad hoc.
  

Figure 12.1: Leicester Mercury and Citizens’ Eye pilot collaboration model

Economic and civic values

The involvement of Citizens’ Eye volunteers was a strategy implemented by editorial managers and as such serves a number of defined purposes for the newspaper and to a lesser extent the website. Interviews with managers and the project co-ordinator demonstrate that there was a clear economic motivation for using community volunteers. The two-pronged approach was led by a need for more resources to cover a wider range of stories which would in turn attract more readers to buy the newspaper. Keith Perch, editor of the Leicester Mercury said “a big part of the partnership is about driving newspaper sales, it is about having more diverse content in the paper and more of the community involved” (L3). The Citizens’ Eye project co-ordinator, Mark Charlton, also readily admitted that they were “looking for the Holy Grail of increasing sales of the newspaper” (L14).

Comments were made in interviews with journalists that Citizens’ Eye was a useful resource to “fill the paper” (L2) and meant the news desk had “one less page to worry about” (L14). Citizens’ Eye was seen as being particularly useful as a resource to report on stories that journalists did not have time to cover such as community events. The point was made that in the past when there were higher staffing numbers, reporters would be routinely sent to report on community stories rather than simply concentrate on high profile news. With less staff, the view of editorial managers was that professional journalists should not “waste time” (L14) doing smaller stories which could be covered by volunteers and instead they should be freed up to concentrate on investigations. Mark Charlton, Citizens’ Eye project co-ordinator (L14) further explained:

We have got to create a situation where we can get the best out of our professional journalists and the demand for local news from our communities around Leicester and find a cost effective way of doing that. And while there are people willing to make contributions to the newspaper like Citizens’ Eye, community reporters, then I think we would be insane not to try and capitalize on that.

Citizens’ Eye was acutely aware of the short term fix volunteers were providing the newspaper but saw it as mutually beneficial as it allowed it to meet its remit of getting unheard voices into the mainstream media. “Citizens’ Eye is not the answer (to cut backs in newspapers) but at this particular moment in time citizen journalism is in the right place at the right time...it is a force for opportunity not destruction,” said its editor John Coster (LM1). This type of coverage builds on the British alternative press movement of the 1960s as discussed in Chapter 1. The alternative press turned away from official sources and instead “reported the views and actions of people living on housing states, of those involved in community groups, of rank-and-file trade union activists, unemployed people, and the views of those active within the women's and gay movements and the black communities” (Harcup, 1998, p.106). As Harcup notes, although this movement was ultimately quashed by the mainstream market-driven press, the commercial press was nether-the-less forced to take notice of ordinary citizens and this has further developed through the introduction of the web. In this study it was evident that the Citizens’ Eye project was replicating the ethos of the alternative press model and in turn this was impacting on the content of the mainstream press, in this case the Leicester Mercury. By involving more readers the Leicester Mercury was providing alternative voices and broadening its content, which albeit a secondary motivation, enabled greater civic participation. “They fill in a grey area that reporters would not always pursue. Things we wouldn’t see as that important, they cover quite intensively,” said Mark Charlton, Citizens’ Eye project co-ordinator (L14).

The value of Citizens’ Eye to the Leicester Mercury was primarily a resource and an opportunity to widen content of the newspaper to drive sales. Civic participation was arguably happening by default reflecting Jenkins (2008) model of a rewarding mutually beneficial relationship with potentially conflicting agendas.