January 2006


The background:
New technology meets old ideas

WHEN FOUR young men set off to explode bombs on underground trains and a bus in London on July 7, 2005, they probably hoped to change politics; they probably didn't think about the media.

In the confusion of that morning, the authorities were trying as quickly as media organisations, especially the 24-hour rolling television news channels, to find out what had happened, and where.

For radio broadcasters, nothing much had changed. They invited witnesses to phone in with accounts of what they had seen and sent reporters to interview those affected.

For television and the internet, the day saw the convergence of technology and economy. Hundreds of individuals in London that day were carrying mobile phones with cameras. Television and web producers in dire need of visual material solicited images. The public responded en masse.

The quantity of images that were offered - and then used across the world by television channels, newspapers, magazines and web sites brought an immediacy to a concept which had been growing slowly since the birth of the internet - 'citizen journalism'.

Although the trend had started six months earlier, when tourists affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami had sent pictures to news organisations, and video of the Concorde crash in January 2003, shot by a man in a van, was later bought outright by the BBC, the craze grew throughout the year.

Old idea - new technology
The concept is not new. Hard-pressed weekly newspapers have long depended on unpaid, or minimally paid, contributions, including photographs of school plays and vicarage fetes, from 'village correspondents'. Trade journals have used free material from experts.

Local radio has only survived because so many called phone-ins or came into studios as - unpaid - interviewees. BBC regional television has functioned the same way.

However badly paid, professional journalists produced most of what was published.

For the industry, it seemed that the public's offering of so many images had produced a major change.

Since then, much of the debate has centred on the implications for photographers, this phenomenon presents potential problems for writers too.

Many aspects of the debate are not new, but as the costs of video and digital still cameras and camera-phones have decreased, the numbers of individuals buying and using such devices has increased. The internet and mobile telephony have meant that 'citizen witnesses' can file material far more easily and cheaply than was possible even 10 years ago.

All in a name?
Much has been made of the terminology. In the heat of the moments after July 7, the expression 'citizen journalism' was used widely.

However, this too quickly attracted concern. Some rushed to point out that such individuals were not 'journalists', or at least had not been trained as professional journalists.

Others pointed out that all journalists are citizens. Therefore, a suggestion was put to the NUJ's Freelance Industrial Council in October 2005, that the expressions 'citizen witnesses' or 'witness contributors' more accurately describe such individuals and their activities than 'citizen journalism'.

Another opinion is that everyone at the scene of an incident is a 'citizen witness', but as not all either take photographs or submit them to media outlets, the most important were those who are 'witness contributors'.

Crucially perhaps, a BBC TV documentary about July 7 and this response to the events in London included interviews with many of those who submitted images. None considered themselves 'journalists', although one did say that he may well try to take more pictures if he found himself in a similar situation in the future.

For the National Union of Journalists, its members, other professional journalists, and media organisations, the growth in 'witness contributors' has implications for credibility and staffing levels.