Claire Wardle, co-founder of EyeWitness Media Hub and research director at the Tow Center of Digital Journalism, discussed the issues around using newsworthy pictures and footage from social at the recent news:rewired digital journalism conference
4. Eyewitness media
…original photographs or videos that are not
posed or scripted, which are deemed to be
valuable by news or human rights
organisations, who seek to use and or distribute
them through their own channels.
[ ]
22. news organisations that scrape
my YouTube video into their own
media player, two years after I
uploaded it, without my
permission or knowledge, and
without sharing any revenue
they earn by adding a 20 second
pre-roll ad
I’ve been studying this since 2007 back when my slides looked like this. Always hated this term, and desperately wanted another one. But couldn’t work out why I hated it so much until recently.
Emphasis on content is partly why I think we’re see some dubious practices. Newsrooms think of this as content, like any other. It’s come in like Reuters feed. The person who captured the footage gets lost.
So last year I started encouraging people to use the phrase eyewitness media. We even started the eyewitness media hub (more of that anon).
Today I’m going to focus on why we need to start focusing on the eyewitness and how we treat them.
Two weeks ago was the 10th anniversary of the 7.7 bombings and I went back to reflect on the last decade in terms of eyewitness media.
I was reminded how webdesign has moved on a great deal (no offence BBC) but more importantly, how strong the relationship was between the bbc and the audience before the age of twitter and while the existed Facebook and YouTube.
22,000 emails sent to the BBC about the explosions on 7/7. Amazing to think so many people stopped to contact the BBC on that day. 22,000 emails.
Compare that to the newsgathering that ooccurred around this picture posted by Patrick Murphy a former congressman from Pennsylvania who was in the Amtrak train that derailed outside Philadelphia.