Conversations on ‘making the news’: A citizen journalism-oriented tool for empowering citizen advocates of journalism

Abstract

This article explores an avenue for fostering a model of citizen journalism that is empowered by community dialogue about ‘making the news,’ interactive engagement with local news actors, and advocacy for journalism. The research effort features two key focal points. First—from a normative standpoint—it emphasizes a broader conceptualization of citizen journalism that includes citizen contributions to discussions about, and advocacy for, quality journalism in one’s community. Understanding that such empowerment necessitates (a) a basic belief that journalism has a degree of value/relevance to oneself and (b) a sense of agency in helping to improve the health of the local news media environment, this study draws on the concepts of citizen academies, Perceived News Media Importance, and self-efficacy. Second—representing an empirical focal point—this study initiates exploration of the utility of a journalism-themed citizen forum initiative (in the model of citizen academies) for fostering the community interactive dimension of “citizen journalism” outlined herein. Building on existing research of citizen forums, initial findings support the assertion that such initiatives have the capacity to reinforce the importance of news work (especially related to investigative journalism) while mitigating citizens’ self-perception of inefficacy in helping to support the local news media environment. Our discussion considers how future initiatives might be strengthened to most effectively motivate and empower citizens to advocate for this model of citizen journalism.

Keywords

Citizen journalism citizen forums citizen academies self-efficacy advocacy civic education perceived news media importance investigative journalism

While many scholars acknowledge the multidimensional nature of citizen journalism as including elements like news consumption, sharing, and other forms of civic participation that contribute to public discourse (Nah and Chung, 2020), citizen journalism scholarship primarily focuses on news creation and distribution by non-professionals (Miller, 2019; Wall, 2015). Furthermore, citizen journalism is commonly understood as news production that complements traditional models of journalism rather than a replacement of mainstream news altogether (e.g., Fico et al., 2013). For instance, in view of highly specialized news genres such as investigative journalism (Lanosga, 2022), observers note that citizen journalists may be ill-equipped to cultivate reliable, diverse news sources or meet high standards of verification (Reich, 2008). Despite such reservations, citizen journalism represents a meaningful form of civic participation vis-à-vis local news ecosystems (Nah and Chung, 2020). With these considerations in mind, this study showcases “citizen forum” initiatives (see Peifer and Partain, 2023) as a tool for empowering quality citizen journalism. Specifically, this article examines community conversations’ potential to elucidate the value of newswork and cultivate support for healthy journalism environments, thereby helping to empower citizens to enrich their local news environment.

This article features two key components. First, it proposes a broader theoretical conceptualization of citizen journalism that includes citizen empowerment to engage in, and advocate for, quality local journalism. Such empowerment necessitates citizen belief that journalism is personally valuable. Should citizens be motivated to contribute to improving the health of their local news media environments, such empowerment also necessitates a perception of agency and sense of ownership. We draw on the concepts of citizen academies, Perceived News Media Importance, and self-efficacy to elucidate the relevance of these elements for a broadened understanding of citizen journalism. Secondly, we empirically examine a citizen forum initiative as an avenue to bolster the broader vision of “citizen journalism” espoused here, employing pre- and post-event survey items to explore the forum’s utility. Building on existing research of citizen forums, this exploratory research effort provides general support for the expectation that community dialogue and civic education about journalism have the capacity to reinforce the personal value of news work and to mitigate citizens’ self-perception of inefficacy in supporting a local news media environment. Simultaneously, this study’s analyses and discussion also underscore the challenges of motivating and empowering citizens to advocate for the model of citizen journalism outlined herein.

Literature review

Conceptions of “citizen journalism”

With the rise of digital technology and social media, declining trust in social institutions, and growing political polarization, legacy news media’s gatekeeping power has eroded markedly over the last 30 years (Wallace, 2018). Content produced and published by traditional news organizations faces intense competition within contemporary medias’ attention economy, both in terms of a multiplicity of entertainment options produced by bona fide media companies and content that non-professional, non-journalistic actors produce/distribute. Given that the viability of traditional, commercial news outlets in this media environment—especially newspapers (Usher, 2023)— is hardly assured, news media practitioners and scholars continue to theorize and experiment with news ecosystem models that treat citizens not as mere consumers but also active participants (Engelke, 2019).

Scholars vary in how exactly to conceptualize “citizen journalism.” Yet, as summarized by Miller (2019), citizen journalists are typically thought of, at a basic level, as “people who produce and share content, but do not do so as a representative of a legacy news organization” (Miller, 2019, p. 2). Similarly, Wall (2015) highlights the notion of citizen journalism as news content produced by nonprofessionals. While emphasis on the non-professional/non-institutional nature of citizen journalism is typical, scholars do provide nuance. For instance, Miller (2019) distinguishes four types of citizen journalists: participatory, para, news-media watchdog, and community. Meanwhile Nah and Chung (2020) advocate for a perspective of citizen journalism as a form of civic participation; they point to content creation, consumption, and delivery as major citizen journalism activities. Particularly important to this study’s discussion, Friedland and Kim, (2009) define citizen journalism as that which contributes to “discussion in the public sphere” (p. 297). Whether in the form of simple information synthesis, reporting, or opinion, Friedland and Kim, (2009) stipulate that citizen journalism does not include just any form of user-generated content. Rather, citizen journalism pertains to content that enters into the “conversations of democracy” (p. 297).

Though citizen journalism does not escape skepticism —especially from traditional journalists (Lewis et al., 2010)—many scholars deem citizen journalism worth supporting for its capacity to strengthen a given community’s storytelling network and communication infrastructure (including both professional and non-professional actors), which bear implications for the health of an information environment (Nah and Chung, 2020). When citizens invest in local communication resources and infrastructure, these community members can be activated more effectively to construct a strong community and facilitate collective action for a common purpose (Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006).

Broadening the dominant assumptions of “citizen journalism”

While there is utility in the operating assumption that citizen journalism is animated by individuals and social networks who produce and share news content outside the scope of traditional news organizations, this paper emphasizes that a more expansive conceptual framework could offer added value. Restricting notions of citizen journalism to the production and distribution of news content can obscure opportunities for citizens to contribute to and engage with media ecosystems that do not involve technical skills (e.g., writing; editing; photographing; publishing) or other on-going, time-intensive contributions. From a pragmatic standpoint, broadening our dominant assumptions about citizen journalism can encourage more inclusive citizen journalism practices and spark fresh approaches to citizen journalism. We identify four elements that we think promote a more holistic conception of citizen journalism: constructive discussions about the nature of journalism itself, relationship building, sharing knowledge, and empowered advocacy for journalism—what is tentatively labeled here as citizen advocacy.

(Constructive) public discussions about journalism

Consistent with Friedland and Kim’s (2009) definition of citizen journalism as that which contributes to “discussion in the public sphere” (p. 297), we posit that an important dimension of a citizen journalism ecosystem is constructive discussion about newswork’s value in one’s community and society more broadly. This emphasis on constructive conversations about the processes of creating the news aligns with Robinson’s (2023) assertion that engaged journalists must take on the role of community conversation facilitator to make civic discourse a primary goal. Such discussion includes genuine dialogue between citizens and news producers, whether traditional journalists (employed by a news organization) or citizens who produce content. We would also emphasize that the tenor of “constructive” discussion highlighted here is two-way communication that focuses on facets of news structures, community needs within a given locale, and assessments of journalism’s value in contributing to a community. From an aspirational standpoint, these conversations should be marked by mutual curiosity and an openness to learn, both on the part of citizens and news producers (see further discussion below). Such discourse can meaningfully contribute to the “conversation of democracy” in the spirit of citizen journalism.

Sharing knowledge/civic education

In tandem with constructive discussion, we recommend a broadened conception of citizen journalism empowered by civic education. For example, journalism-oriented transparency initiatives can equip citizens with deeper knowledge about common journalism practices and norms. This knowledge sharing can include insights about in-the-field practices and behind-the-scenes processes—for instance, explanations of newsroom hierarchies, the role of budgets and corporate interests in shaping news production, and considerations that go into editors’ and producers’ decisions on which sources and stories ‘make the news.’ To be clear, we do not propose that knowledge about journalism, in and of itself, constitutes citizen journalism. Rather, by fostering a deeper understanding of roles that journalism professionals may perform, as well as the ethics and principles that motivate journalism practices and news coverage, citizens can be equipped with tools to better assess their own values pertaining to journalism/newswork and examine the potential implications that an absence of journalism would entail. Furthermore, this dimension of citizen journalism can also include community members sharing knowledge with journalists as well, providing insight on the diversity of perceptions, expectations, and desires of a respective community relative to news content and practices. Of note, this type of back-and-forth exchange can be particularly conducive to enabling journalists to center the needs of groups that have been historically marginalized by the one-way model of journalism (Walters, 2023).

Relational engagement

A fuller understanding of citizen journalism’s potential should also underscore the value of building mutually-beneficial relationships between citizens and news producers—akin to the ideas of reciprocal journalism (Lewis et al., 2014), engagement journalism (Robinson, 2023), and community-centered journalism (Wenzel, 2020). Wenzel (2020) and Robinson (2023) propose that news organizations need to actively form relationships within the communities they serve. Such engaged journalism (Robinson, 2023) could lead to collaborative journalist-citizen generated news content, but the primary goal in this respect is for journalists to nurture relationships with, and listen to, audience members. Relational engagement of this nature—especially in-person interaction—is conducive for fostering familiarity, goodwill, trust, and empathy among key stakeholders in a news ecosystem (Wenzel, 2020; Zahay et al., 2021). It is particularly important for news organizations to repair relationships with people from marginalized communities (Crittenden and Haywood, 2020; Robinson, 2023; Wenzel, 2020), some of whom have argued that “it is a function of journalists’ responsibility to be involved in the fabric of a community” (Walters, 2023, p. 8). We emphasize that the principle of relational engagement encourages citizens to initiate and remain involved in constructive conversation with journalists/news producers (Robinson, 2023; Wenzel, 2020). Given the time-intensive nature of relationship building, we expect relational engagement will prove most successful when stakeholders embrace a shared responsibility for relational formation and maintenance.

A shared sense of responsibility for relationship-building in the context of community forums need not demand intimate, one-to-one, first-name basis interactions. But shared responsibility does exhort citizens and those who take on the labor of newswork to nurture mutual empathy and understanding. Moreover, relational engagement between journalists and news audiences—whether in-person or via a “parasocial relationship” (Levy, 1979)—may scaffold future interactions. For example, community participants may use an interactive event with journalists (e.g., Adams, 2020) as a reference point when reaching out to journalists with further questions, concerns, or feedback. Notably, research has demonstrated drawbacks to journalists sharing personal information in less regulated spaces, such as social media platforms (e.g., Holton et al., 2023). Our emphasis on the value of relational engagement does not discount that concern. Instead, this reality underscores the need for conducive spaces for journalists to connect with and humanize themselves to their audiences.

Citizen advocacy

Finally, by virtue of community discussion, knowledge sharing, and relational connection, we posit that citizens can ultimately be more empowered to advocate on behalf of journalism—what we tentatively label “citizen advocacy.” This concept is not to be confused with “advocacy journalism.” Nor should the goal of citizen advocacy (on behalf of journalism) as articulated here be designed to preserve historical journalistic practice and business models. Such advocacy need not be, for example, about “saving” a struggling commercial newspaper. Instead, as a key element of the more expansive model of citizen journalism envisioned in this paper, a citizen advocacy dimension of citizen journalism refers to community members—equipped with sufficient knowledge and motivation—who feel agency to advocate at a grassroots level for, and work to cultivate investment in, the strength of a local news media environment. Such “investment” is not limited to news subscriptions and consumption. Rather, it extends to citizens embracing an ambassador role in their social environment to impart the values of quality newswork in the community, to respond to misunderstandings surrounding responsible journalism, and perhaps to educate other citizens informally about avenues of support for a healthy news ecosystem.

The inner-workings of citizen advocacy (for journalism) is likely to look different from community to community–dependent on factors such as affluence, education, geography (e.g., urban vs rural contexts; international contexts with different media systems than that of the US), politically diverse versus more politically homogenous communities, and whether the given community has been historically marginalized by mainstream press (Wenzel and Crittenden, 2021). Such factors affect the extent to which various groups and individuals are included in conversations about local news in the first place. When environments are newsroom-centric, as opposed to community-centric, they can be unwelcoming to members of marginalized groups (Wenzel, 2020). Accordingly, it is incumbent that efforts to empower advocacy, on behalf of healthy local news ecosystems, are designed to be inviting and accessible to a diversity of publics, not just those who’ve historically enjoyed privileged access.

Additionally, it should be recognized that individuals’ motivations—also heavily dependent on context—can play an important role in this citizen advocacy. While regular civic participation is one determinant of civic action, O’Brien et al.’s (2017) findings show that the public may be more likely to act as partners in civic matters when they express “human territoriality.” Derived from Taylor’s (1988) work, O’Brien et al. (2017) define human territoriality as “the tendency to identify with and claim ownership and responsibility for spaces and objects” (p. 321). In O’Brien et al.'s (2017) research, territoriality over a neighborhood resulted in increased civic engagement, which itself was driven by participants’ desire to benefit—and regulate norms within—their local community. Regarding citizen journalism, we expect that the concept of territoriality in a public-as-partner model would resemble a feeling of ownership—and protection—over local news making processes, consequently prompting civic advocacy. Importantly, we contend that citizen advocates would promote all healthy information networks, rather than privileging legacy/“professional” media over citizen journalism-oriented news production. We theorize that citizen advocacy efforts will be most effective when offering synergistic solutions that integrate traditional forms of news media with citizen-led practices, eschewing inclinations to pit citizen journalism against legacy/professional media.

Citizen forums as a tool for strengthening citizen journalism

Discussion on broadening dominant assumptions about citizen journalism prompts the important question of how to foster the proposed citizen advocacy aspect of citizen journalism that 1) includes constructive discussion about a given community’s news needs, 2) builds relationships between citizens and news producers, 3) facilitates education on the value of a strong news ecosystem, and, ultimately, 4) empowers citizens to advocate for quality news systems. We propose citizen forums—as focused on journalism matters— as a promising venue for promoting this vision of citizen journalism.

The citizen academy model

The concept of a journalism-themed citizen forum is inspired by “citizen academy” initiatives. In simple terms, citizen academies refer to “educational programs conducted…for the purpose of better informing and engaging citizens” (Morse et al., 2017, p. 7). Such initiatives—usually conducted in-person and meant to serve as a venue for civilian-public servant interactions—are designed to build capacity for collaboration and engagement in a given community, with the primary purposes/goals of (1) imparting knowledge (2) encouraging civic involvement, and (3) building community relations (Morse, Willard and Holder, 2017, p.10). Such academies are sometimes facilitated by fire departments and local government/municipal offices, but the most familiar and perhaps dominant version is citizen police academies (e.g., Brewster et al., 2005).

One aim of this project (see also Peifer and Partain, 2023) is to apply the concept of citizen academies to the context of journalistic practice. To emphasize the aspiration of genuine dialogue and two-way engagement between news producers and citizen advocates (and avoid the more didactic connotations of an “academy”), we refer to such initiatives as “citizen forums.” Notably, citizen forums of this nature resemble elements of the civic/public journalism “movement” (Rosen, 1999) that sparked efforts to establish reader/citizen councils and advisory groups to news outlets in the 1990s. Though journalism-themed citizen forums represent a similar impulse, they are unique in that community engagement facilitation is not principally through formal news content features, technology, or advisory boards. Rather, a citizen forum model entails programming strategies that help forge personal connections and two-way discussion, provide a sustained glimpse into how journalism is done, and encourage citizens to advocate in their communities for the support of journalism in a diversity of forms—both in terms of “professional” and non-professional newswork. We propose that these interaction and transparency processes can break down barriers between audiences and producers, thereby fostering greater goodwill and collaboration as well as reducing audiences’ knee-jerk suspicion about newswork more generally.

Peifer and Partain (2023) overview how a citizen academy-oriented initiative can be used to illuminate journalism’s inner-workings for citizens and facilitate community interaction with journalists. Upon organizing two citizen forum events that brought together community members and collectives of representatives from several news organizations, Peifer and Partain (2023) found evidence that the forum programming promoted confidence in understanding journalistic practices, facilitated a sense of connection with local journalism, and developed stronger trust in news. Building on the insights uncovered by prior research, we designed this study to consider further how journalism-themed community forums may strengthen a more expansive model of citizen journalism, as outlined here.

Self-efficacy

A key mechanism for understanding how a community-based citizen forum may strengthen facets of citizen journalism/advocacy is one’s feeling of agency in response to a task or situation; that is, one’s perception that they can effectively produce an outcome or result (Bandura, 1997). Such agency can serve as a motivating force for action (Ajzen, 1991)—especially for different forms of civic and political participation (Bobkowski and Rosenthal, 2022; Gastil and Xenos, 2010). Within a civic context, efficacy often is discussed in terms of political efficacy—“the feeling that political and social change is possible, and that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change” (Campbell et al., 1954, p. 187). Research indicates robust support for a relationship between political efficacy and civic participation (Valentino et al., 2009).

In sum, if a person does not feel a degree of control over a desired result/task, they will be prone to reduce, or altogether avoid, involvement in that activity. Accordingly, we theorize that self-efficacy should play a fundamental role in promoting citizen advocacy for journalism. In order for citizens to advocate for a healthy news environment, they must believe in their capacity to achieve the desired outcome and should feel that meaningful involvement as a non-journalist in a collective effort is even possible.

Perceived News Media Importance

Furthermore, self-efficacious citizens should believe the action in question matters. As stipulated by Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the key determinants of one’s behavior and behavioral intentions are (a) one’s sense of self-efficacy related to the behavior, (b) the social pressure one feels related to engaging in the behavior, and (c) the importance attributed to a given attitude (as related to the object or behavior in question). In view of this study’s aim to deepen an understanding of initiatives designed to foster citizen dialogue about and advocacy for quality journalism in a community, TPB and efficacy scholarship more generally point to the necessity of also showcasing the personal value and utility of journalism (i.e., the issue of attitude importance). The concept of Perceived News Media Importance (PNMI) emphasizes the relevance of a citizen’s value judgments of journalistic work on a personal level.

PNMI gauges the extent to which citizens value a range of journalism’s aspirational roles in society (Peifer, 2018). Reflecting different dimensions of news work according to perceptions of its importance as well as its instrumental value, PNMI encompasses citizens’ evaluations of six basic news functions: (1) informing the public, (2) facilitating a diverse public forum for the exchange of ideas, (3) providing analysis of news events, (4) mobilizing participation in public life, (5) cultivating social empathy, and (6) investigating issues of corruption and dysfunction among power holders. These assessments are measured with items like, “It is important to me that the news media expose the shortcomings of government officials and institutions.” (See Section 2 of the Supplemental material for an overview of survey items aligned with these PNMI dimensions). Of note, the different dimensions of the PNMI concept (i.e., the public forum, information, and mobilization functions) bear strong relevance to this paper’s recommended conceptualization of citizen journalism—as ideally inclusive of constructive dialogue, building connection, facilitating knowledge, and empowering civic engagement. Moreover, the degree of valuing these journalistic aspirations can be consequential. Existing scholarship provides insight on the implications of attributing high import to normative news media functions, including having the capacity to highlight when one is likely to find anti-media rhetoric threatening, of demonstrating when journalistic transparency efforts can translate into increased audience engagement (Peifer and Meisinger, 2021), and of when one is likely to express support for press freedom (Peifer, 2020).

Case study introduction and hypotheses

In view of the theorized roles of attitude importance and self-efficacy for promoting a model of citizen journalism that includes empowerment to collectively advocate for journalism, this case study is designed to initiate consideration of the capacity of citizen forums to foster/reinforce notions of journalism’s value and one’s sense of competence to contribute to the health of a local news media environment. Importantly, the theoretical model and the case study presented here are best understood as exploratory, building on previous scholarship by Peifer and Partain (2023), which analyzed data from both the citizen forum analyzed in this paper and data from a pilot citizen forum. This prior research demonstrated that citizen forums have potential to strengthen understanding, connection, and trust. The process of reflecting on those findings and the data presented in the current case study serve as a foundation from which to envision citizen forums as a citizen journalism-oriented tool for empowering citizen advocates of journalism. While acknowledging the exploratory nature of this case study, as representing a research endeavor not fully envisioned when originally designing the citizen forum in focus, we would emphasize the value of exploratory research for yielding unanticipated findings. Therefore, to evaluate the capacity of civic education programming, personal interaction with journalists, and community discussions about journalism, this case study is designed to test two basic hypotheses related to PNMI and self-efficacy—concepts that are both linked to the ideals of citizen journalism espoused here.

H1(a-g): Participation in a citizen forum will promote increased appreciation for the value of distinct (normative) functions of journalism, reflecting a renewed/new understanding of journalism’s value and utility to oneself.

H2(a-b): Participation in a citizen forum will promote an increased sense of self-efficacy for helping to improve the health of a local news media environment.

Methods

Procedures

This research principally draws on data from pre- and post-event survey questionnaires (N = 43) administered at a “citizen forum” event organized in the state of Indiana. While all attendees filled out the survey questionnaires, a subset of participants took part in one of four focus group discussions, all facilitated simultaneously at the conclusion of the forum’s daylong programming. Approved by an institutional review board, the forum program and research in focus was conducted in February of 2020, organized by this article’s lead author in collaboration with university personnel and community members associated with local civic organizations (e.g., the League of Women Voters). The event, open to all adult members of the local community, was advertised as “a community conversation” that would focus on how traditional journalism works and “how you play a part in supporting a healthy local media environment.” A local Boys & Girls Club facility served as the event venue. The in-person programming featured panels and forum discussions with a wide range of journalists/journalism educators. The forum did not promote a single, local news organization as the central focus of this event. Panel participants—including journalists, news editors, and journalism educators—talked about journalism-related issues and fielded audience questions and comments throughout the day. The sessions featured topics such as “deciding what’s news,” “reporting on community controversies,” “making news viable with non-traditional business models,” and “the value, challenges and ethics of investigative journalism.” (See Peifer and Partain (2023) for additional overview of the event programming).

Participants

As also outlined in Peifer and Partain (2023), recruitment efforts advertised a daylong “Making the News: A Community Conversation” event that would include “discussions, presentations and conversations about the news gathering process and how journalism might better serve you and your neighbors.” Supported by a university-administered public humanities grant, local citizens were offered a $40 gift card to attend the daylong event. Those who agreed to participate in a focus group at the end of the day’s programming were offered an additional $20 gift card. Event participants were required to be 18 years or older with a primary residence in the county. Regarding the participants (N = 43) who attended the entirety of the event and filled out both pre-and post-event questionnaires, 58% identified as female (n = 25) with about 42% identifying as male (n = 18). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 87 years old, but averaged 65 years of age (M = 64.88, SD = 16.83); 81% identified as racially white (n = 35), 5% identified as Asian (n = 2), and 9% preferred not to racially identify (n = 4). Education levels ranged from those holding a high school diploma (7%, n = 3) to 84% of participants holding a college degree (n = 10) or more (n = 26). While 63% of attendees at the citizen forum identified as Democrat, 37% identified as independent, which includes those who said they leaned Democrat (n = 12), leaned Republican (n = 2), or did not identify with either party (n = 2).

Survey measures

Perceived News Media Importance (PNMI) represents an assessment of individuals’ evaluations of various journalism roles’ importance. Past research suggests that the PNMI measure can be employed both in terms of relationships with the distinct dimensions of PNMI and in terms of the combined dimensions—as a composite index (Peifer, 2018). Using the 13-item measure established in prior research, PNMI was measured before and after the citizen forum event (pre-event composite measure M = 4.35, SD = 0.42; post-event M = 4.37, SD = 0.42). The 13 questions in the PNMI battery were measured on a 1–5 scale (1 = strongly disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 5 = strongly agree), encompassing agreement with statements such as “It is important to me that the news provide analysis and interpretation of the complex problems around me” (see the Appendix Material for the full battery of questions, as well as overview of distinct dimensions of PNMI, including Information, Investigative, Analysis, Mobilization, Social Empathy, and Public Forum functions). The pretest (Cronbach’s α = .80) and posttest (Cronbach’s α = .81) composite measures of PNMI were sufficiently reliable.

Self-Efficacy was gauged with questions unique to this research effort. The pre- and post-event survey questionnaires inquired about participants’ efficacy relative to their perceived ability to contribute to the health of their local media environment in two different respects, pertaining to (a) feeling helpless and (b) feeling capable of playing an active role. Citizen forum participants answered the questions, “I feel rather helpless in my ability to play a role in improving the health of the local news media environment” (pre-event M = 3.26, SD = 1.20; post-event M = 2.77, SD = 1.11) and “I feel I can play an active role in supporting the health and vitality of the local news media environment” (pre-event M = 3.91, SD = 0.72; post-event M = 3.70, SD = 0.96). Because of the different nature of each question (actively supporting vs not feeling helpless), these items are evaluated separately in the analyses below.

Analytical procedures

Analysis of the case study data employed dependent (paired sample) t tests or, when finding evidence of non-normal data, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. A paired sample t test was used for assessing the difference between the pre-and post-event composite PNMI measures. Otherwise, in light of evidence of non-normal data with the six dimensions of PNMI and the efficacy measures, as based on Shapiro-Wilks test (relative to the difference scores’ distributions), the remaining analyses employed nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Given the directional nature of the hypotheses, we used 1-tailed tests. These tests examined changes in participants’ self-reported ratings from before and after the citizen forum event. Hypothesis testing implemented a “Bonferroni adjustment,” which involves adjusting the p-value cutoff for each comparison test in a study, such that the adjusted cutoff is equal to a conventional alpha threshold (e.g., 05) divided by the number of tests performed. A conservative approach, this multiple-comparison correction is commonly used when a set of statistical tests (in this case, a total of nine tests) are being conducted simultaneously. In this study’s context, the adjustment was calculated by dividing the alpha value (.05) by the number of tests. Accordingly, .05/9 renders a p-value cutoff of .006. For simplicity’s sake and seeking to avoid an overly conservative test, we rounded up this value—adopting a cutoff of statistical significance at .01.

Findings

The first hypothesis (H1a-g) predicts that participation in a citizen forum will promote increased PNMI, examined both in terms of the distinct dimensions of PNMI and the composite measure of PNMI. A dependent (paired sample) t test (1-tailed) indicated that the participants’ overall PNMI was virtually the same from before (M = 4.35) and after (M = 4.37) the citizen forum event. As detailed in Table 1, there is no significant difference in pre- versus post-event PNMI scores. Furthermore, when probing the distinct facets of PNMI more narrowly, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (1-tailed) reveal no significant difference in pre-versus post-event scores relative to the Analysis, Mobilization, Public Forum, Social Empathy, and Information dimensions of PNMI.¹ However, as indicated in Table 1, the citizen forum participants’ valuations of the Investigative function do seem to meaningfully shift, with a significant increase from before (M = 3.85) and after (M = 4.24) the citizen forum program, z = −3.26, p < .001. In terms of agreement with the journalistic aspirations to “expose the shortcomings of government officials and institutions” and “be an adversary of public officials by being constantly skeptical of their actions” (see Appendix), the survey data indicate that citizen forum programming bolsters appreciation of journalism as a force of accountability.

Table 1.

Tests of pre- and post-event survey item scores.

	Pre-event score	Post-event score	Difference test	Effect size
PNMI (13 items)	M = 4.35, SD = 0.424	M = 4.37, SD = 0.422	t(42) = −.430, p = .33	-
Investigative function	M = 3.85, SD = 0.842	M = 4.24, SD = 0.693	z = -3.26, p < .001	r = −0.50
Information function	M = 4.79, SD = 0.366	M = 4.70, SD = 0.490	z = −1.662, p = .05	-
Analysis function	M = 4.34, SD = 0.81	M = 4.19, SD = 0.90	z = −1.548, p = .06	-
Mobilization function	M = 4.16, SD = 0.670	M = 4.23, SD = .766	z = −0.749, p = .23	-
Public forum function	M = 4.55, SD = 0.448	M = 4.47, SD = .472	z = −1.32, p = .09	-
Social empathy function	M = 4.31, SD = 0.77	M = 4.34, SD = 0.785	z = −0.027, p = .49	-
Feel helpless	M = 3.26, SD = 1.197	M = 2.77, SD = 1.109	z = -2.189, p = .01	r = −0.33
Play active role	M = 3.91, SD = 0.718	M = 3.70, SD = 0.964	z = −1.588, p = .06	-

Note. N = 43. All questions based on 1-5 scale, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Significant findings at the .01 level, reflecting a Bonferroni adjustment, are indicated by bold text.

Here it is worth noting that (a) the citizen forum programming featured in this exploratory study included a session dedicated to investigative journalism and (b) that the pre-event rating of investigative journalism’s importance is lower (at M = 3.85) than all other PNMI dimensions (see Table 1). We speculate that this may in part be due to the adversarial element of the question wording for the investigative journalism dimension of PNMI (i.e., “be an adversary of public officials by being constantly skeptical of their actions”). The citizen forum session, which featured conversations between and audience interaction with a panel of investigative journalists, may have helped to illuminate why an adversarial dynamic can sometimes be necessary with newswork.

Addressing the second hypothesis’s (H2a-b) prediction that participation in a citizen forum will promote an increased sense of self-efficacy relative to improving the health of the local news media environment, we find no significant difference from the pre-to post-event timeframes in feeling motivated to play an “active role [italics added] in supporting your local news media environment.” (See Table 1.) However, we do find a statistically significant decrease in feeling “helpless” in one’s ability to play a role in improving the local news media environment from before (M = 3.26) and following the event (M = 2.77), z = −2.189, p = .01. While participants do not evince greater motivation to take on an active role, they do indicate feeling less helpless.

Discussion & conclusions

Set against the backdrop of a broadened conception of citizen journalism, this manuscript’s underlying rationale is that bringing citizens and news producers into conversation with one another can strengthen citizen journalism. Such work entails educating both citizens about newswork and journalists about a community’s needs, while also highlighting the importance of journalism for a community–especially in terms of journalism acting as a force for accountability. These efforts can empower people to advocate for and meaningfully engage with local news ecosystems—activity that extends beyond the scope of creating, editing, and publishing news-related content. In short, this article makes the case that interactive community discussions about ‘making the news’ can be an effective tool for strengthening a more expansive framework of citizen journalism.

Our data support an initial understanding of journalism-themed citizen forum initiatives as empowering an advocacy-oriented dimension of citizen journalism. Taking stock of the empirical findings featured in this study, participants experienced attitude changes in 1) their value of the Investigative dimension of PNMI and, 2) their feelings of being “less helpless” when assessing their ability to contribute to the health of the local news environment. If we are to understand PNMI and efficacy as key elements for fostering intentions to advocate for the health of a news media environment, this study offers evidence that ‘community conversations’ about journalism have utility. Nevertheless, the dimensions of PNMI not related to journalism’s investigative function, as well as the efficacy item pertaining to feeling motivated to play an active role in support of local news media, did not significantly change. The lack of significant change in these measures may be due to a “ceiling effect” among participants who self-selected into the study, an indication that participants already held strong attitudes and feelings on the topic. While participants were not necessarily motivated to actively get involved in advocacy work related to journalism, their agreement that they would feel less helpless in their contributions denotes a passive willingness to engage in civic activity when called. It can be challenging to cultivate citizen efficacy and active involvement, but this finding suggests that citizen forums can foster a sense of empowerment among participants should they need to act.

As this study and Peifer and Partain’s (2023) are among the few research projects on journalism-oriented citizen forums (that we are aware of), the programming and questions for participants were intentionally wide-ranging and exploratory. Specifically, the data collection tools were designed to gauge participants’ perceived ability to affect the health of their local news environment, as opposed to being crafted to measure participants’ willingness to support journalism and to become citizen advocates for news media. Nevertheless, these findings guided the development of our proposed theoretical framework and provide empirical evidence that inquiries into activating citizen participation are well-founded and necessary. We recommend that future research explores the potential of our proposed community engagement model with questions closely aligned with the conceptualization of citizen advocacy for journalism. That is, creating measures that would probe people’s sense of efficacy and desire to bolster local journalism. In this respect, a fruitful next step would be to conduct focus group and/or in-depth interviews with participants of a citizen forum to explore how, when, and to what extent citizens would be motivated to engage in advocacy for journalism; a deeper examination of efficacy should be an integral part of this examination. We envision that such probing would further explicate what “citizen advocacy” of journalism entails.

Future work might also explore ways to cultivate and equip citizen advocates of journalism via efforts to illuminate investigative journalism. Investigative journalism is a particularly intriguing news genre to consider alongside the ideals of citizen journalism, as it is sometimes referred to as “the highest form of journalism” (Lanosga, 2022, p. 873), often benefiting from a high level of skill and experience. Journalism can serve a variety of functions in society, but perhaps more so than other roles, investigative journalism bears particular promise for capturing the public’s imagination of journalism’s societal value. Again, as noted in the findings section, our analyses of the various dimensions of PNMI indicate an increase in appreciation of journalism’s investigative/accountability aspirations. Such findings suggest that the topic of investigative journalism can provide a valuable leverage point for strengthening an understanding of why local news ecosystems are important and fostering a sense of investment/ownership in one’s local news ecosystem (O’Brien et al., 2017). Though not a focal point of this present study, it is illuminating to further examine how the forum participants discussed investigative journalism at the conclusion of the daylong programming. To that end, we further probed this facet of community members’ reflections via a post-hoc analysis of the qualitative data collected during the forum event. Though not included in this main text (due to space constraints), this post-hoc analysis is featured in Section 1 of the Supplemental Material.

Furthermore, this study’s research insights related to journalism’s investigative function warrant ongoing discussion and exploration with community members of how investigative reporting might be better integrated into citizen journalism-oriented news ecosystems. For example, the Detroit-based non-profit newsroom, Outlier Media, strives to make reporting uniquely more accessible to its community by offering an SMS/texting service that allows citizens to talk directly to an Outlier Media reporter (e.g., requesting information related to tax foreclosure, evictions, or finding more efficient energy resources). Outlier asserts that “these conversations drive our accountability and investigative work, leading to local policy changes and increased scrutiny of flawed systems” (https://outliermedia.org/). As another example, the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting (https://www.pcgvr.org/) runs a “Credible Messenger Reporting Project” that pairs seasoned journalists with community members impacted by gun violence to produce and distribute news reports that, in some cases, investigate the root causes of gun violence (Walters, 2023). Given that the topics of investigative journalism often involve issues of deep importance in people’s everyday lives (e.g., tax foreclosure, evictions, gun violence), spotlighting this genre of journalism may prove especially valuable for encouraging people who may not be inherently interested in journalism to participate in conversations about making the news. In sum, this facet of newswork represents one ideal focal point for incorporating community input and fostering a stronger public appreciation of journalism’s role in society.

Beyond the matter of citizen forums helping to illuminate journalism’s value to citizens, it is critical to further explore how citizen forums might foster genuine two-way engagement between news producers and citizens. While the citizen forum model in focus here features civic education programming designed for community members, we posit it is just as important for journalists (whether “professional” or otherwise) to listen to and be receptive of community insights into a given community’s news-related desires and needs. A wide range of input/involvement is necessary to build a resilient news ecosystem. This issue raises the pressing question of how to cultivate the “buy-in” of journalists, to not only make time to engage with a community in this way, but also to facilitate genuine, two-way engagement –especially when some journalists/editors may be skeptical of the ideals of citizen journalism (Lewis et al., 2010; Wall, 2015). Accordingly, future research should include deeper examination of the experience of traditional journalists in citizen forum events, especially as it pertains to the aim of cultivating a broader conception of citizen journalism.

This study’s findings offer a basis for continuing to conceptualize citizen forums as a foundation for sparking community engagement in, and public understanding of, newswork in its various forms. At the same time, it is crucial to put these results in proper context by acknowledging the limitations of this work. The number of participants (N = 43) was constrained by factors such as limited resources/time for recruitment in the community, the time commitment necessary for local citizens to participate in the event, the relatively small size of the community to recruit from, and general public skepticism and/or apathy about journalism, among other potential factors. In this respect, it is important for future work to implement accessible recruitment practices, given that common recruitment techniques of advertising through mediated content and mailing may exclude those without access to internet, reliable technology, or the social capital necessary to receive relevant advertising—as well as those who are homeless or itinerant. Furthermore, we recommend that organizers/researchers build and maintain relationships with local leaders when programming citizen forums, to ensure timely, ethical access to hard-to-reach communities.

Recruiting represents one challenge to citizen forum engagement, but incentives to participate are another important barrier to address. It is important to consider monetary incentives in light of minimum wage standards, but alternative or additional incentives to money—such as schools offering extra credit for attendance, a tour of a local news organization, free meals, gift cards, etc.—should also be considered based on participants’ needs. A variety of incentives may increase the likelihood of participation among those hesitant to attend due to political partisanship or time constraints. Along this line, we recommend that future citizen forum efforts experiment with modes of incentivization that will not only bring participants to the door of the forum, but will keep them active and engaged throughout the forum’s duration.

Another important limitation to recognize is that this study’s set of participants was relatively homogenous, particularly in terms of race, age, class, and political orientation. Moreover, this data and analysis represents just one case study. These study results should not be assumed to fully translate to other participants’ responses to future citizen forums that may be larger/smaller, take place in different geographic and/or cultural settings, or include participants with different demographics. Data from citizen forums with a greater number of participants, in a variety of locales, and with a more diverse set of people, would provide a more robust picture of how effective citizen forums might encourage people to engage with news in the way our theoretical model proposes.

More work is needed to extend imaginations of what citizen forums and citizen advocacy on behalf of a local news ecosystem might look like, and how this fits into models of citizen journalism. To reiterate, what is not imagined is a vision of civic education and news-related advocacy that pushes to abandon conventional forms of journalism. Neither do we envision public advocacy for news ecosystems resigned to promoting (or saving) traditional/legacy news brands, leaving all newswork “to the professionals.” Rather, the citizen forum model featured in this study is most useful in its ability to promote more expansive understandings of citizen journalism; for supporting an ecosystem that includes both professional coverage and citizen-generated coverage, thereby positioning citizen journalism as a counterpart to conventional (i.e., “professional”) journalism. This study’s conception of citizen journalism encourages citizens, educators, scholars, and practitioners alike to genuinely engage in conversations about ‘making the news,’ thereby building relationships, sharing knowledge, and empowering people to engage in advocacy that supports and sustains a reliable and robust news ecosystem in one’s respective community.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Conversations on ‘making the news’: A citizen journalism-oriented tool for empowering citizen advocates of journalism

Supplemental Material for Conversations on ‘making the news’: A citizen journalism-oriented tool for empowering citizen advocates of journalism by Jason T Peifer, Laura PB Partain, and Jennifer Midberry in Journalism

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Indiana University’s Arts and Humanities Council and the New Frontiers in the Arts & Humanities Program.

ORCID iDs

Jason T Peifer

Laura PB Partain

Jennifer Midberry

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

Author biographies

Jason T Peifer (PhD, The Ohio State University) is an Associate Professor in the Media School, Indiana University-Bloomington.

Laura PB Partain (PhD, Indiana University-Bloomington) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication, The Ohio State University.

Jennifer Midberry (PhD, Temple University) is an Associate Professor in the Klein College of Media and Communication, Temple University.

References

Adams

(2020) News on stage: towards re-configuring journalism through theatre to a public sphere. Journalism Practice 15: 1163–1180. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2020.1771754.

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Worth Publishers, Macmillan Publishers.

Bobkowski

Rosenthal

(2022) Journalism civic self-efficacy: predicting political participation among secondary-school journalism students. Journalism Practice 16(10): 2166–2184.

Brewster

Stoloff

Sanders

(2005) Effectiveness of citizen police academies in changing the attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of citizen participants. American Journal of Criminal Justice 30: 21–34.

Campbell

Gurin

Miller

(1954). The Voter Decides. New York, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company.

Crittenden

Haywood

(2020) Revising legacy media practices to serve hyperlocal information needs of marginalized populations. Journalism Practice 14: 608–625. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2020.1759124.

Engelke

(2019) Online participatory journalism: a systematic literature review. Media and Communication 7(4): 31–44. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v7i4.2250.

Fico

Lacy

Wildman

, et al. (2013) Citizen journalism sites as information substitutes and complements for United States newspaper coverage of local governments. Digital Journalism 1(1): 152–168.

10.

Friedland

Kim

(2009) Citizen Journalism. In: Whitney

Sterling

(eds). Encyclopedia of Journalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 298–303.

11.

Gastil

Xenos

(2010) Of attitudes and engagement: clarifying the reciprocal relationship between civic attitudes and political participation. Journal of Communication 60(2): 318–343.

12.

Holton

Bélair-Gagnon

Bossio

, et al. (2023) “Not their fault, but their problem”: organizational responses to the online harassment of journalists. Journalism Practice 17(4): 859–874.

13.

Kim

Ball-Rokeach

(2006) Civic engagement from a communication infrastructure perspective. Communication Theory 16(2): 173–197.

14.

Lanosga

(2022) Investigative journalism. In: The Sage Encyclopedia of Journalism. United States: Sage Publications.

15.

Levy

(1979) Watching TV news as para‐social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting 23(1): 69–80.

16.

Lewis

Holton

Coddington

(2014) Reciprocal Journalism. Journalism Practice 8(2): 229–241. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2013.859840.

17.

Lewis

Kaufhold

Lasorsa

(2010) Thinking about citizen journalism: the philosophical and practical challenges of user-generated content for community newspapers. Journalism Practice 4(2): 163–179.

18.

Miller

(2019) Citizen journalism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.786.

19.

Morse

Willard

Holder

(2017) The citizens academy handbook: Building capacity for local civic engagement. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina School of Government.

20.

Nah

Chung

(2020) Understanding Citizen Journalism as Civic Participation. New York: Routledge.

21.

O’Brien

Offenhuber

Baldwin-Philippi

, et al. (2017) Uncharted territoriality in coproduction: the motivations for 311 reporting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(2): 320–335. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muw046.

22.

Peifer

(2018) Perceived news media importance: developing and validating a measure for personal valuations of normative journalistic functions. Communication Methods and Measures 12: 55–79. DOI: 10.1080/19312458.2017.1416342.

23.

Peifer

(2020) Warring with the press: the influence of elite hostility, emotions, and perceptions of news media importance on support for journalism. Journalism Studies 21: 1852–1872. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1797525.

24.

Peifer

Meisinger

(2021) The value of explaining the process: how journalistic transparency and perceptions of news media importance can (sometimes) foster message credibility and engagement intentions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 98: 828–853. DOI: 10.1177/10776990211012953.

25.

Peifer

Partain

(2023) Citizen forums: examining a journalistic transparency initiative’s capacity to foster understanding, connection, and trust. Journalism Practice 1–21. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2023.2202207.

26.

Reich

(2008) How citizens create news stories: the “news access” problem reversed. Journalism Studies 9(5): 739–758. DOI: 10.1080/14616700802207748.

27.

Robinson

(2023) How Journalists Engage: A Theory of Trust Building, Identities, and Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Rosen

(1999) What are journalists for? Yale University Press.

29.

Taylor

(1988) Human Territorial Functioning: An Empirical, Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions, Behaviors, and Consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Usher

(2023) The real problems with the problem of news deserts: toward rooting place, precision, and positionality in scholarship on local news and democracy. Political Communication 40(2): 238–253.

31.

Valentino

Gregorowicz

Groenendyk

(2009) Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior 31: 307–330.

32.

Wall

(2015) Citizen journalism: a retrospective on what we know, an agenda for what we don’t. Digital Journalism 3: 797–813. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2014.1002513.

33.

Wallace

(2018) Modeling contemporary gatekeeping: the rise of individuals, algorithms and platforms in digital news dissemination. Digital Journalism 6(3): 274–293.

34.

Walters

(2023) Pushing for social change: how collaborations are recalibrating the journalistic mission. Journalism Practice 1–17. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2023.2187862.

35.

Wenzel

(2020) Community-centered Journalism: Engaging People, Exploring Solutions, and Building Trust. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

36.

Wenzel

Crittenden

(2021) Reimagining local journalism: a community-centered intervention. Journalism Studies 22: 2023–2041. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1942148.

37.

Zahay

Jensen

Xia

, et al. (2021) The labor of building trust: traditional and engagement discourses for practicing journalism in a digital age. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 98(4): 1041–1058.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.35 MB