Debate about journalism: We regret the rise of citizen journalism

This lesson plan is about organizing a classroom debate. We are not — this is crucial — organizing a discussion. A debate differs from a discussion because it is structured and has clear rules:

• The debate topic is worded as a proposition that some speakers will support and some will oppose. There is no working towards a compromise; one team wins, and the other loses;
• In this version of formal debate (adjusted for classroom use), we have two participating teams (proposition and opposition);
• Debaters cannot choose which side they represent in a debate - the sides (proposition and opposition) are assigned randomly with a coin flip:
• The rules clearly specify who speaks when and for how long.

For a classroom debate, we propose the following format:

• Each team has three speakers, who will each hold a 4-minute speech;
• During the main speeches (but only after the first 30 seconds and before the last 30 seconds of the speech), the opposing team can stand up and offer a question. Every speaker must accept and answer one question from the opposing team. Alternatively, you can have a 1-2 minute time slot for questions after each speech – we recommend this option if you want to engage more students and if your students are new to public speaking and might be intimidated by interruptions;
• The students who are not delivering speeches act as debate adjudicators.

First speakers (on both sides) should set up the debate and provide the initial arguments. Setting the debate means establishing the main definitions and clearing up what the debate is about (for more information, see the lesson plan “Motion analysis”). Second speakers should be bringing in final arguments, responding to the opposing team’s arguments, and rebuilding their first speaker’s arguments. Third speakers should analyze all arguments, respond to their opponents, and rebuild their own argumentation. In other words, they should provide an overview of what happened in the debate and why their team won.

The rest of the class should serve as debate adjudicators. They should be taking notes and weighing proposition and opposition arguments. Instruct them to be objective and to evaluate only the speeches they’ve heard, putting aside their personal opinions and/or arguments and examples they would have used as debaters.

If you want to engage the students more actively, you can always adapt the proposed format to fit more students - have 6 students per team, and have each of them deliver a 2-minute speech. A separate pair of students per team can also be used for asking and answering questions. If you are curious about more classroom debate formats, we recommend you read the chapter “Debate in Classroom” in the Melita Methodological Guide.

After you form the teams, they should have time to prepare. Students who are not debating should also participate in preparing arguments.

Students are allowed to use textbooks and the internet while researching for their arguments. If your students are still struggling, we recommend you pause their group work and do a quick brainstorm as a class, making note of all the reasons to propose and oppose the motion.

To the extent possible, the students should try to build arguments on their own. If they are struggling, use any of the arguments listed below to provide them with an idea of what an argument for or against this motion could look like.

Proposition

Definitions:

Citizen journalism is where the information is provided by individuals who are not traditional journalists. This does not include freelance journalists, but usually people who do something else entirely.

1st argument: Citizen journalists have bad information.

Explanation:

1. To get legitimate information and investigate, you must be an actual journalist. This means that you possess the skills required to actually investigate. Not everyone can decide to randomly start investigating something.
2. Furthermore, often you will not get anyone willing to talk to you, disclose information to you, etc., if you are not a journalist from a proper media institution.
3. Lastly, journalists often use advanced tools, which are too expensive for regular people.
4. This means that citizen journalists will have less accurate information than actual journalists, which increases the risks of misinformation.

Example:

Most big stories, important discoveries, etc., happened due to big media investigations rather than citizen journalism — there is, in fact, a lack of good examples of citizen journalism.

Impact:

Citizen journalists have bad information that can harm civil society greatly and help disseminate misinformation.

2nd argument: Citizen journalists have no editors

Explanation:

1. Traditional media have editors who do two main things:
   1. they check the content and ensure its quality;
   2. they check the content and ensure that journalistic standards are being followed.
2. This has a big impact on the final product — without the editing process, the content becomes much much worse.

Example:

Many citizen journalists stray into the territory of conspiracy theories and other problematic content.

Impact:

The lack of editors further increases the harm citizen journalists can do to the editing process.

3rd argument: Citizen journalism promotes relativism

Explanation:

1. Citizen journalists are, as we have seen, out of control. Therefore, they often produce a lot of highly contradictory content, which they defend, usually by explaining that there is something about their point of view which makes it valuable. The problem with this is that it further promotes the idea that opinions and facts can mix — citizen journalists do not know how to be objective and often mix the two.

Example:

Most citizen journalists are heavily mixing their opinions with whatever content they are producing — this happens even more because usually they only report on what they care about and have an opinion about.

Impact:

Relativism makes it easier for manipulation to occur and also drops the moral standards for everyone — but this can be misused the most by the politicians and the elites.

Opposition

1st argument: Having citizen journalists promotes a more diverse field of journalism

Explanation:

1. A lot of the established media institutions operate on similar paradigms, covering the same type of content. Citizen journalists often focus on more random, more local, overlooked topics, which promotes more diversity.
2. They also cover topics from other perspectives. Traditional media institutions often represent a view of their private owners, usually very rich people, meaning citizen journalists have a gap to fill.

Example:

In the example of the Arab Spring, the citizen journalists played a crucial part in the social movement, providing information through social media, which was not easily found elsewhere.

Impact:

Citizen journalists plug an important gap in the media landscape, therefore we cannot regret them.

2nd argument: Citizen journalists can be more honest than traditional news

Explanation:

1. Traditional news often have explicit agendas:
   1. privately owned media represent the views of their owners;
   2. public media often represent the views of the government.
2. Citizen journalists usually have very little to gain from their work, which very often means they can be more honest than their traditional counterparts.

Example:

There are numerous examples of traditional media pushing a hidden agenda, but citizen journalists are way more open about their identity, their convictions, and their motivations — even when they are not objective, they are open about it.

Impact:

Citizen journalists are often more honest than traditional media, which means we cannot regret them.

3rd argument: Citizen journalists create a more active civil society

Explanation:

1. Citizen journalists are good role models to their community. Usually, we are adopting a passive role when it comes to receiving information and seeing fellow citizens actively provide information can also motivate us.
2. The audience of citizen journalists is usually more involved in the process of getting information, as opposed to the traditional media in which the process is far more opaque and inaccessible — this activates not only the citizen journalist but the whole society around him as well.

Example:

Imagine you see your friend reporting about something in your local community. They go around, asking people questions, and their audience starts collaborating, maybe actively performing journalist duties themselves, whereas a lot of people just start following more intently. This is our desired effect.

Impact:

Even if their work is a bit less professional, their audiences are way more involved, which means that they are more active — this is definitely something we want.

The debate takes place; some students debate, the others take notes and adjudicate.

1. Who do you think won the debate and why?
2. What would you do differently?
3. Did your opinion on the topic change after watching the debate?