Our project will address the concept of collaborative citizen journalism (CCJ) in the digital age, and will focus on investigative journalism—in particular, whistleblowing and leaking sensitive information. CCJ is where ordinary citizens band together on the Internet to write original stories and critique mainstream media stories, using the Internet to connect with each other and to make sure their thoughts reach the public. CCJ differs from blogging in that it adheres to the more rigorous elements of journalism, and collaborative media efforts ensure that a story is as complete and up-to-date as possible.
Examples of collaborative journalism include Wikipedia (for current events), Korean site OhMyNews, NewAssignment.Net (founded by NYU professor Jay Rosen), and Bayosphere (founded by a former San Jose Mercury News journalist) where CCJ stories are reported by a team of volunteer journalists. Obvious benefits from CCJ include an involved, empowered audience that can bring about more accurate stories than the traditional forms of media, while detractions include unaccountability, and the inaccuracy of information. The speed at which information transmits on the Internet is both an advantage and disadvantage to CCJ. However, advocates of CCJ say that while individually, individual contributions to CCJ may be crude, untrustworthy, and unimportant, collectively, they possibly represent the largest and most widely accessible pool of information and entertainment in history.
In particular, we are interested in whistleblowing, and the legal implications of leaking documents on the Internet. An example of how the average blogger or citizen journalist can encounter legal problems is the Zyprexa case. We talked to a lawyer from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about the anonymous individual they are representing who was sued by Eli Lilly. The Zyprexa documents were leaked from an ongoing product liability lawsuit against Eli Lilly. The internal documents allegedly show that Eli Lilly intentionally downplayed the drug's side effects. EFF's client posted links to one set of copies on a wiki devoted to the controversy that were part of extensive, in-depth analysis from a number of citizen journalists. Aside from First Amendment questions, other questions raised in cases like this include the question of if a source is obtained illegally, what right does a citizen journalist have to display the information publicly?
Another example we will examine is the new website, Wikileaks.org, which aims to be an anonymous and uncensorable repository of leaked documents, posted for commentary by interested parties. It is expected to go live in a few months and functions like Wikipedia in collaborative user efforts to post information. Wikileaks.org states that its primary interests are oppressive regimes and corporations and claims that have received over 1.1 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources. While many are excited by the idea of anonymity and protection in whistleblowing, some fear that in the absence of accountable editorial oversight, publication can become an act of aggression, incitement to violence, invasion of privacy, or an offense against good taste. Other questions from Wikileaks.org that arise involve the issue of anonymity, which is central to the concept of the wiki, but can quickly be overruled by a court's subpoena for information.
The goal of our project, as shown by these two examples, to it analyze what the average citizen blogger can and cannot legally do in their investigative collaborative efforts. To avoid both a chilling effect on CCJ and legal liability, these issues need to be answered for people who choose to whistleblow and use wikis like Wikileaks.
Will this project ultimately produce a list of the do's and don'ts of whistle-blowing online or will the analysis also provide new suggestions for how people can legally leak information? Moreover, will there also be information on what people can do to lobby for more protection for whistle-blowing or is this outside the scope of the study?
Posted by: Tan Yan Chen | February 27, 2007 at 06:00 PM
What are your working examples of CCJ? The EFF client is just one individual, no?
Although I think CCJ is working/emerging in other countries (South Korea, Germany), the endeavor faces considerable obstacles here in the United States. While CCJ can produce information that people need to know in order to survive politically/culturally, you might need to make a more explicit case for this by introducing working examples.
Related to that, how does the current buzz for CCJ relate to previous efforts, such as public journalism? Are there lessons that can be learned there... especially insofar as journalists' freedom/protections are concerned?
Posted by: Seeta Peña Gangadharan | February 28, 2007 at 02:52 PM
PS. I hit send too quickly! I think the two US examples you describe are tenable... but you might want to at least acknowledge where CCJ struggles and how these struggles may link to or impact what you are creating/proposing.
Posted by: Seeta Peña Gangadharan | February 28, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Why this type of site makes sense in my head ss how this seems analogous to anonymous tip lines. The only difference being the database feature which could potentially attribute identity. I'd like to hear why anonymous tip lines for crimes, insurance fraud, payola , etc. are allowed to operate without similar concerns into fraudulent or malicious tips. Is it the technology, is it the specific function of the tip lines, or is it the decidedly anti-government tone to the site? Is this a fair legal analogy to draw? My intuition says that a database that is public and searchable does change the equation quite a bit, but legally, why should this matter?
Posted by: Shane | March 13, 2007 at 11:15 PM