User:Thirdright/Metajournalism

Self-published journalism
In the late twentieth century, the ability for groups and individuals to communicate expanded dramatically. With the rapid proliferation of the tools to generate and distribute content, the art of reporting began to move from the domain of established publishing entities and into the homes and hands of individuals.

Social media
By the twenty-first century, social media allowed anyone with access to the Internet to publish their thoughts, ideas, or opinions to a wide audience with little effort or expense. Along with this increase of audience, the ability to report on ongoing events in a meaningful way increased as well. Easy to use tools and websites made it possible for people to produce and distribute photos, videos, audio, and text about current events and rapidly share those elements with others.

Live reporting
Today, it is possible to watch live video produced by participants in events around the world. Social media websites give up-to-the-second updates from protesters or combatants. Freelance journalists report from demonstrations, hostage situations, concerts, and combat zones. This real-time access provides unprecedented unedited insight into events as they occur.

Example of rapid dissemination
As the number of individuals producing content increased, so too did the ability to reproduce and provide editorial comment on that content. For example, a bystander to a law-enforcement action may take a photograph and distribute it on a social media site with or without commentary. Others may add comments and continue to distribute that photo. At times, traditional broadcast or print media may then report on that event and include the photo and commentary from the original bystander or those who distributed the content. At any point in the translation from the original event to the end viewer of the reporting, additional editorial decisions or commentary may be added or removed.

Definition
For the purpose of this essay, the act of reporting on the reporting of others is called Metajournalism. In this context, the use of the prefix ‘’meta-‘’ is used to mean ‘’about’’. In computer programming and other disciplines, metadata is “data ‘’about’’ the data.” In journalism, metajournalism is “journalism about the journalism.” This is distinct from repackaging or redistributing the original journalism.

In the earlier example of a photograph taken at a law-enforcement incident, others may add editorial content or context to the photograph, but it is always with the understood goal of redistributing the original reporting. Metajournalism of the event would occur if some separate entity produced editorial content about the distribution of the original content. This could be as straightforward as “A photo of the event was viewed 500 times at X social media site in the 24 hours following the event.” Alternatively, it could be as complex as an in-depth study on the impact that the distribution of the photo had on the event, future similar events, legal proceedings, etc. Metajournalism need not be complex, but to be metajournalism it must be reporting ‘’’about’’’ the reporting.

Applicability to Wikipedia
Wikipedia’s core content policies are that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, must be verifiable, and must not contain original research. Generally, articles that are written about subjects that are covered by multiple independent mainstream sources are able to meet these requirements:
 * If reliable sources differ in their conclusions, a neutral point of view is maintained by presenting the differing views in a balanced manner.
 * Verifiability is maintained by adequately citing the reliable sources used.
 * Original research is avoided by strictly reporting on what the sources used said about the subject, without introducing new ideas or combining what sources said to create a new understanding of the subject of the article.

Metajournalism has an impact on at least two of these three core content policies.

Verifiability
The verifiability policy states that “It must be ‘’possible’’ to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question.” Metajournalism impacts verifiability in two distinct ways:


 * If the subject of an article is a thing, a person, or an event, its inclusion in an encyclopedia relies on there being independent reliable sources about that subject. In order for the content to be verifiable, those sources should directly support the information in the article. As metajournalism is journalism ‘’about the journalism’’ about a subject, sources that are metajournalism do not directly support the information about a subject – unless that subject is in fact the journalism.


 * As an example of this, consider an article about a popular uprising, where there may be hundreds of individuals creating first-person accounts. Those accounts are self-published, primary sources and are almost exclusively not verifiable. There may also be one or more accredited journalists or experts on the region who publish accounts of the uprising. Those accounts are subject to peer or editorial review, and are likely verifiable. Then there are the metajournalism accounts, where reliable sources report on the reporting of the first two groups. This reporting is about the reporting (i.e. “Within minutes, word of the assault by police spread via social networking” in the first case, or “By nightfall, major news organizations had embedded reporters on the scene” in the second). These metajournalistic sources are ‘’not’’ producing content that is directly about the uprising. Although the metajournalism may be used to support statements about the reporting, it is important to distinguish that it is not in fact supporting statements about the uprising.


 * If the subject of an article is the ‘’reporting’’ on a thing, person, or event, its inclusion in an encyclopedia still relies on there being independent reliable sources about that subject (the reporting). In this case, the reporting itself is the subject of the article and is no longer a neutral commentary on the subject. When writing an article about the reporting on a subject, the primary source(s) ‘’are’’ the reporting as the sources are directly involved in the subject. Metajournalism (again, reporting about the reporting) becomes a required component. In other words, there need to be independent, verifiable, and reliable sources about the reporting in order to meet the verifiability policy for an article about the reporting.
 * For example, if the popular uprising above were widely reported on and in some way impacted by that reporting, then there may be a desire to create an article about “Popular Uprising in the media” or “Impact of social media on Popular Uprising.” In order for these articles to meet Wikipedia’s core content policy of verifiability, there would need to be multiple reliable sources ‘’about’’ that subject. Additionally those sources would need to independent of the subject (i.e. independent of the media coverage of the uprising). If the major news outlets were involved in the reporting that is the subject of the article, that reporting could not be used as an independent source for that same subject. The article would require new reliable sources that are not directly involved in the subject in order to meet Wikipedia core content policies. At first appearances, this may seem to be a higher standard for these article subjects. However, the treatment of these subjects is in reality no different. The core policy that sources must be independent of the subject is the same and is still applicable.