Witnessing in Participatory Journalism: Siege of Aleppo and Narratives of Authenticity

Jaana Davidjants
{"title":"Witnessing in Participatory Journalism: Siege of Aleppo and Narratives of Authenticity","authors":"Jaana Davidjants","doi":"10.2478/bsmr-2022-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores witnessing within and as participatory journalism (participatory witnessing) based on a case study of narratives of the Aleppo siege created by amateur content producers, professional journalists and commenting audiences. To analyse the nuances and challenges of participatory witnessing as a practice and a field, I examine the narratives of all parties (tweeters in Aleppo, news outlets and people commenting below the news articles) as well as their visual and textual strategies for gaining “trust” by claiming authenticity. While news outlets were largely sympathetic to tweeters and amplified their messages, the commenting audience distanced themselves from the suffering and refused to bear witness by responding with four narratives: “tweeters are fake,” “tweeters are terrorists,” “the media is lying” and “collateral damage.” Many elements from the “post-truth” narrative repertoire were utilised to create distance from the scene of suffering. Therefore, empowering vulnerable parties to participate “in journalism” (inviting the audiences to “bear witness”) does not necessarily lead to participation “through journalism” (audiences “bearing witness” in response to these calls).","PeriodicalId":253522,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Screen Media Review","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Screen Media Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bsmr-2022-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article explores witnessing within and as participatory journalism (participatory witnessing) based on a case study of narratives of the Aleppo siege created by amateur content producers, professional journalists and commenting audiences. To analyse the nuances and challenges of participatory witnessing as a practice and a field, I examine the narratives of all parties (tweeters in Aleppo, news outlets and people commenting below the news articles) as well as their visual and textual strategies for gaining “trust” by claiming authenticity. While news outlets were largely sympathetic to tweeters and amplified their messages, the commenting audience distanced themselves from the suffering and refused to bear witness by responding with four narratives: “tweeters are fake,” “tweeters are terrorists,” “the media is lying” and “collateral damage.” Many elements from the “post-truth” narrative repertoire were utilised to create distance from the scene of suffering. Therefore, empowering vulnerable parties to participate “in journalism” (inviting the audiences to “bear witness”) does not necessarily lead to participation “through journalism” (audiences “bearing witness” in response to these calls).
参与式新闻报道中的见证:阿勒颇围困和真实性叙事
摘要 本文基于对业余内容制作者、专业记者和评论受众所创作的阿勒颇围城叙事的案例研究,探讨了在参与式新闻报道(参与式见证)中的见证以及作为参与式新闻报道的见证。为了分析参与式见证作为一种实践和领域所面临的细微差别和挑战,我研究了各方(阿勒颇的推特用户、新闻机构和新闻文章下方的评论者)的叙事,以及他们通过声称真实性来赢得 "信任 "的视觉和文字策略。虽然新闻机构在很大程度上同情推特用户并放大了他们的信息,但评论受众却通过四种叙事方式与苦难保持距离并拒绝见证苦难:"推特是假的"、"推特是恐怖分子"、"媒体在撒谎 "和 "附带损害"。"后真相 "叙事剧目中的许多元素都被用来与苦难现场拉开距离。因此,授权弱势方 "参与新闻报道"(邀请受众 "见证")并不一定会导致 "通过新闻报道 "的参与(受众响应这些呼吁 "见证")。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信