I was mortified when I learnt about the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday. When death strikes suddenly and so unfairly especially within one's "home turf" (an university environment) it really makes an impact and my thoughts goes out to colleagues, students and relatives of the casualties at VT.

I tuned on to CNN monday evening when I got home after a faily long day, and were surprised to learn that the cellphone video taken by Jamal Albarghouti and later submitted to CNN's I-report site had, according to the news anchor, already been viewed by 900.000 people. Within less than 24 hours, that's a lot for a grainy video whose news value mainly lies in the audio track - and of course with the knowledge that it was shot while the killing(s) took place.

If you visit CNN's I-report site, it is interesting to observe that the editors seem to take great care in educating users on how to produce higher quality material (there are tutorials on how to take better photos, make better films and produce better audio). Question is, if you are caught in the middle of a crossfire, do you remember the rule of thirds? (would professional journalists?). Doesnt the "authenticity of experience" that user-produced material promises us derive exactly from the unpolished look and feel of it? If users become almost professionals in their use of film and audio equipment will the material produced engage us as much? Or will it be enough to dub material with the tags "citizen journalism", "i-reports" in order us to give the experience of "authenticity" and presence?
# posted by Lisbeth at: 11:28