friesMedia
2.0 solutions for mediaArchive for community
Police Brawl in DC: A Case for Citizen Journalism
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, Washington, DC, June 20, 2007
Pandemonium.
Lights flashing, a spiral of screaming, hysterical phone calls, a flash fire – combustible Columbia Heights – ignited.
It was a war zone, ground zero – not a neighborhood, not even anything physical – hate.rage.fear.heat, low hanging, oppressive smoldering chemicals, waiting for the spark, flash point fire.
I got off the metro at the Columbia Heights stop at around 8:30pm June 19, 2007.
The explosion was before me: complete chaos, nearly 25 cop cars, blocking 14th St. NW, lights blazing, satanic disco, and everywhere people screaming: into cell phones, at cops, at each other.
Sirens, screams, and DC’s inescapable heat.
Near me, a woman screamed the story into a phone; she was shaking, near hysterical: Two teenage girls had been fighting, the cops had arrived to bust things up, and then [allegedly] taken the arm of a bystander – a teenage girl, a ‘chile’ – and busted her head against a car and started roughing her up.
From there it had exploded; everyone screaming at everyone.
I whipped out my camera, shaky from the 4 hours of sleep I’d managed to snag on my way back from Portland, through Phoenix, Vegas and finally DC.
Get that the fuck out of here! Get on with yourself! Don’t point that at me! screamed one woman – I’m not! I’m taking pictures of the cops! ((I’m on your side! – I didn’t say – I’m press! – I didn’t say!!)) – Keep walking! Keep walking! she screamed, and I did, because I was tired, and this was not my fight.
I could have circulated, taking notes, more pictures, trying to get the story, but I knew she was right. The story was what that woman was screaming into her phone – not my transcription of it. People talk about citizen journalism, and they talk mostly of the elites – white soccer moms contributing play by plays of their children, pictures and videos galore; lawyers posting nuanced descriptions of the latest city council development.
But this – sweat, fear, alleged police brutality, raw emotion, a neighborhood terrorized by gunshots and intermittent police presence that now was as frightening as the drive-bys murdering 13 year olds – this is the stuff that “citizen journalism” should be made of, not yuppies posting restaurant reviews.
A search of Google News turns up nothing about last night – a terrifying night in Columbia Heights – my community message board has nothing.
Background on the Columbia Heights violence:
- Columbia Heights Shootings Cause Alarm, WashingtonPost.com
- Three Shot, One Killed, Columbia Heights, LauraFries.com
- In Face of Losses, A Fight to Save Area, WashingtonPost.com
- ‘Ghetto sun’ burns bright, Columbia Heights, LauraFries.com
- Teen Charged in Youth’s Slaying in ‘Shooting Melee’, WashingtonPost.com
The Washington Post has written some amazing pieces about Columbia Heights violence recently, but it’s impossible for one reporter to capture everything – and never with the intensity of last night, with women screaming the story into their phones and the muggy night air.
This is the story of the summer.
If I was the editor of a local publication, with reporters at my disposal, this is what I’d do.
I’d send my people out into the community for the summer. It would be their job to make friends with trusted community leaders, in the churches, community services, and schools. It would be their job to comb every source: every community newsletter, bulletin board, barber shop, church social and blog where citizens were spreading the news themselves. It would be the reporter’s job to earn trust and build sources.
From there, I’d ask them to deputize community voices – precocious writing students, the empassioned families of shooting victims. Give people the means of telling their own stories. Give people hope – that when something truly horrible happens in their community, that they have the means to document it; that [alleged] police brutality doesn’t begin and end with a rough shove onto sizzling summer concrete.
I’d set up easy ways for citizens to contribute their stories – a voice mail box where they could tell the story as it happened, an easy way to email the pictures that nearly everyone was snapping on their cell phones last night.
I’d have my reporters perform a number of roles – soliciting content from their community, while creating it themselves. Reporters would weave together pictures from the fight, combined with user-contributed audio accounts of the brawl, into slideshows for the website. They would interview community members while encouraging them to contribute content themselves; in effect turning interview subjects into viral marketers for the publication.
And because the community I was trying to serve would have limited access to the web, I’d be sure to create a print-product that my reporters and trusted community members could circulate as they did their jobs of reporting and source-gathering. Even something as simple as a 8.5×11 newsletter that others could photocopy and distribute themselves would serve multiple purposes: 1) reporting the news in a medium that was accessible to the community it was serving, 2) soliciting user contributions, and 3) creating a feedback loop between community and publication.
In collaboration with the community, my reporters would eventually be able to create a number of media products:
- Traditional reporting in a newspaper
- A rapidly-updated website, with professional and citizen content
- A micro-distribution newsletter
It’s a lot of work – no denying it. But if you lived, like I do, in Columbia Heights, afraid to walk home at night, distrustful of the police you [allegedly] see brutalizing teenage girls, hearing the gunshots that are kids killing kids, you’d be happy to find even a 8.5×11 piece of paper on your doorstep, telling you that at least somebody was paying attention, and you had the means to fight back.
Creating a Space for Community Conversation
Or, How to Have User-Generated Content on Your Site that Facilitates Conversation and Won’t Get You Fired
It’s a question that lots of papers are struggling with – “I want to include comments and other user-generated content on my site, but I don’t want a bunch of trolls arguing, and I don’t want to get sued.”
Super Quick Non-binding Legal Overview
Your organization is considered the publisher of any *content* that is published on your site as an article – whether written by your staff or the public – and you are liable for its content, just as if you had printed it in the paper.
Generally, you are not liable for *comments* left on your site. However, if a staffer leaves a comment, and doing so can reasonably be construed as a part of their job duties, you *might* be liable. If you *edit* a comment in any way, you are responsible for the remainder of the comment’s content. And, if your organization has a specific comments policy (i.e. “No racism allowed!”) and it fails to remove a comment that violates this policy in a reasonable timeframe, you might be liable for this failure to act.
Whew.
So … legal mojo aside, how do you create a space for conversations?
Step 1: Four Cs of Creating Community Conversation
Take out a piece of paper and jot down your answers to these questions.
Community
Who are the community members you expect to contribute content? Think about your web product – is it your entire site, or a stand-alone venture like a blog? Does your entire town have something to say, or just the music fans? And who are the listeners – the ‘lurkers’ who might never contribute, but might be faithful readers?
Conflict
What kind of conflict can you imagine this audience having? How will the content on your site contribute to conflict? For example, a forum about welfare reform will attract a different type of conversation than one about the best spot in town to get sushi.
Constructive Corraling
How can you steer your community away from conflict and towards conversation? Will your community behave itself if they are all identified by their real names? Is comment moderation the answer (not publishing comments until they have been approved by a human editor)? Or will a free-wheeling “we’ll take it down if it gets really bad” approach work for your community?
Calculate Risks and Benefits
Your ‘constructive corraling’ solution will have pros and cons. Weigh them in context of your staffing realities.
- If you require folks to use their real names as a moderation device, will that prevent them from trash talking? How can you verify this?
- If you decide to moderate comments, do you have the staffing ability to review comments in real time? (A comment moderated a week later does not facilitate conversation).
- If you decide to just let the content fly, what are you risking?
Step 2: Experiment
We’re putting together a community blog for the upcoming 2007 AAN Convention at Portland2007.AAN.org. Inspired by the community blog for the 2007 South by Southwest Interactive Conference in Austin, this blog will allow any conference attendee to post an ‘article’ – which AAN will be legally liable for. Here’s how I handled the content challenge.
Example: Community Blog at Portland2007.AAN.org
Community: My community consists of employees of AAN papers, associate members like cartoonists and software vendors, and folks who are interested in alternative media. My listeners consist of, well, everyone – but especially folks with a beef against specific papers or individuals.
Conflict: An industry characterized by mergers, buyouts and staffing changes is full of potential sources of conflict.
Constructive Corraling: Folks might be willing to say nasty stuff anonymously, but I am making the assumption that if they are only allowed to publish using their real names, that will curtail much of the trash talking. (Hopefully?) My constructive corraling mechanism was to moderate identity creation – that is, I am only allowing folks with verifiable identities to post on the blog. To create a user account, a potential author must submit a valid, verifiable email address – no ihatemyoldboss@gmail.com.
Calculate Risks and Benefits: Of course, verifying an email address requires a human editor – and even the fastest editor isn’t as fast as the instant gratification of a computer. I balanced the annoying wait time against the possible trouble I would get into if folks were allowed to post willy-nilly on the site, and decided it was worth it.
So, my experimental solution to creating a space for community conversation is to require folks to use their real identities – hoping that’ll force ‘em to play nice.
Step 3: Listen and Adjust
No matter how well thought out your solution is, it’s important to realize that you are herding cats. Listen to your users – what they think about your technical setup, what they think about the conversations that happen on the site, and more importantly, to the conversations themselves.
In that spirt, what do you think of my technical solution? Have I played the 4 Cs of Creating Community Conversation correctly? What tactics have you tried?








The Golden Rule of Commenting for Newspaper Employees
May 16, 2007 at 9:47 am · Filed under Content, comments, community, conversation, legal
Treat your audience the way you’d like to be treated: identify yourself and your biases clearly.
The comments in the post Creating A Space for Community Conversation sparked this post.
One of the many great questions in the comments was:
Yes – all staffers should be required to use their real names.
A modified version of the Golden Rule is a simple ethical guideline: Treat your audience as you would like to be treated.
For the most part, we’d like to discourage our users from coming on our site, assuming fake names, and posting comments they don’t necessarily believe in, just to start controversy. Those people are called trolls, and they are disliked because they make it harder for people to have conversations.
It goes without saying that reporters are required to use their real names when commenting on a story; the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal fired a reporter in 2006 for commenting anonymously on his own work to ’set the record straight,’ and the L.A. Times reassigned Michael Hiltzik for posting anonymous comments on a District Attorney’s blog. Hiltzik was reprimanded for violating the Times‘ ethics guidelines, which state: “Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times.”
But what about other employees of the paper? What rules apply to them? And what of the question posed by Matt Writt in the comments of Creating A Space for Community Conversation?
Matt brings up an complicated point – let’s take it back to the Golden Rule. Would we want our audience to come onto our site and comment on a story without revealing that their brother is featured in it? Or that their PR office represents the restaurant that they are praising lavishly?
We certainly can’t stop a commenter from hiding their affiliations, but we can encourage transparency by practicing it ourselves. Creating a community where folks feel comfortable acknowledging their differences and discussing them in a constructive fashion is hard work – and leading by example is an easy way to set the community standard for behavior.
Matt works for the paper; an obvious bias. Given the small staff of alt-papers, it’s likely that he might be friendly with the reporter whose work he is commenting on – friendly with the section editor, copy editor, editorial designer. He might even know the subjects of the article, or patronize some businesses mentioned. These biases are transparent only when he identifies himself as an employee of the paper.
And on a legal note: Matt may not be bound by the ethical responsibilities of a journalist, but as an employee of the paper, the comments he leaves on the site could be legally construed as part of his job duties, which would leave the paper liable for anything he says on the site – whether he uses his own name or not.
[A note on personal transparency: I identify myself as LauraFries.com on this blog, which is the name I use whenever writing on the Internet. The blurb about me on the 'About the Author' page on this blog (accessible via the 'About' page or the footer navigation) links to my personal blog, with more than ample documentation of my own biases. I adhere to our Editorial Policy stringently.]
Comments (3)