Media increasingly rely on user-generated content raises questions of responsibility, safety, media literacy. Citizen journalists go into dangerous zones without any protection to get a story or the perfect shot; they come into conflict with authorities for recording some material. What responsibility do media have for those they do not employ or pay but whose content they use? Do they have clear policies on this?
Joe Galvin, Europe news editor at Storyful, is one of several prominent panellists who will address these questions in the panel discussion “Untrained, Unpaid and Unprotected Contributors – Obligations and Responsibilities of Media Towards Citizen Journalists”, on March 20 at the IPI World Congress in Doha, Qatar.
Galvin has worked for Storyful, the world’s first social media news agency, since 2012, first as a duty editor/journalist, then as its Europe news editor. As one of the senior news editors at Storyful, Galvin leads a team of 15 journalists in finding the most powerful social media stories and content.
Founded in Dublin, Ireland in 2010, and acquired by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp in December 2013, Storyful is dedicated to providing some of the world’s largest media organisations – including the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters – with verified social media content and up-to-the-minute context on breaking news stories.
IPI Contributor Michael Kudlak spoke with Galvin to hear some of his thoughts ahead of the World Congress.
IPI: Mainstream media are relying increasingly on user-generated content. Do news organisations have moral or ethical obligations towards citizen journalists who endanger themselves to get the big story or perfect shot?
Galvin: In a word, yes. One of the key founding principles of Storyful was that we would ensure the owners of content would get the courtesy they want – whether that’s financial compensation, on-screen courtesy, or whatever they wish. We also have an obligation to discourage risk-taking among eyewitnesses, and that is a challenge we still need to work on. I believe we have evolved as an industry significantly in this regard in recent years, and it’s no longer a Wild West where news organisations are just ripping off content. However, there’s more to be done as regards discouraging eyewitnesses and citizen journalists to take unnecessary risks, and this is a discussion that needs to continue.
IPI: Many news organisations warn citizen journalists on their websites not to endanger themselves in any way to get a story. Is this enough, and what else can media outlets do to protect the safety of citizen journalists?
Galvin: It is a start, and I think this should be done regularly in personal communications too, but when news organisations use highly dramatic content from eyewitnesses at dangerous situations on their broadcasts and websites, there will be an implicit encouragement of risk-taking. This is a big challenge, as it is important for us to tell the true story, but not important enough that people are taking unnecessary risks.
Secondly, I think we should be more vocal about the risks to specific eyewitnesses and citizen journalists of posting content online; it is relatively easy to track back and identify the owner of a piece of video, for example, in many instances. We need to be more vocal about the steps activists should take to mask their identities and remain anonymous if they desire, particularly if they are in conflict zones. There is a naivety about posting content online among amateurs, and as an industry we need to be more vocal about the dangers.
IPI: Citizen journalists often find themselves the target of police or security forces. Do news organizations have a duty to help citizen journalists who find themselves arrested?
Galvin: It depends on the context, but if a news organisation is regularly using content from a specific citizen journalist – and, in particular, if a news organisation is in a financial relationship with a citizen journalist – then that news organisation should be there to support that journalist if needed. However, perhaps an industry-wide solution is needed to address this issue, and more financial support given to journalism NGOs to protect and support citizen journalists who find themselves in those situations.
IPI: Besides the physical risks, reporting on political unrest or from dangerous zones can also take a psychological toll on citizen journalists. How can news outlets help citizen journalists who have experienced traumatic events?
Galvin: Again, it depends on the relationship between the news organisation and the journalist, but if it is a consistent relationship then the news organisation should offer that journalist support through counselling services and so on. Again, however, it depends on the relationship between an individual organisation and a journalist, and perhaps an industry-supported NGO that can provide these services is a better and more sustainable model.
IPI: Citizen journalists may not be aware of questions of privacy or other legal restrictions. Can/should news organizations teach best practices to citizen journalists?
Absolutely, as I alluded to above. We at Storyful have contributed to guides and best-practice documents in this regard, and work with the likes of the Eyewitness Media Hub and the First Draft Coalition to formulate best practice. We need to be much better at communicating to eyewitnesses and citizens journalists about their rights. One of our goals at Storyful is to be a leader in that process; our ideal scenario is that anyone, anywhere, who has a smartphone and an Internet connection, will know the rights and risks involved when posting eyewitness content online. It’s our job as an industry to ensure they do.