Accountability

Questions of accountability have arisen from the practise of citizen journalism. Much discussion has circulated around who is imbued with the right to comment publicly. This is a complex issue, one that the scope of this essay only allows us to touch on. A journalist’s voice is imbued with authority precisely because they ‘appear to set aside all self-motivated interests’ (Cohen in Reader, 2006: 101), while a blogger’s voice derives value from being a representative of the public journalists serve. Discussions on blogging networks reflect a multitude of individual opinions, collectively construed as a public.

Conceptions of ‘public’ have also been revisited in the debate between journalism and blogging. Jurgen Habermas’ ideal of a ‘public sphere’ as a forum for rational thought and discussion has come under fire for ‘disenfranchis[ing] most people from legible public speech or action’ (Cohen in Reader, 2006: 102). Habermas’ fantasy permits only dispassionate speech as public speech and only those who can prove themselves to be sexually, racially and economically unmarked to present it (Cohen in Reader, 2006: 102). This notion of dispassionate speech is in opposition to the nature of blogging, which is personal, and, one could argue, its inherent value. And the insistence that only people who meet certain criterion are worthy of public speech is problematic because it marginalizes all others.

Blogging communities do not necessarily represent all, or even most marginalised groups, but there is the potential for participatory media to invigorate critical thought on the matters at hand can produce a truer reflection of public opinion, and go some way toward breaching the gap between news institutions and their audiences. One could say that bloggers are airing their own truths, their own opinions and values, adding their own layer of meaning to a given discussion.