Emily Bell's 'We're all reporters in the digital democracy'

Bell focuses on the citizens' contribution to modern media and the future possibilities of their contribution to our media. She uses to examples to illustrate the differences between 'then' and now, e.g. in her second paragraph: "For as long as there has been journalism there have been bystanders and eye witnesses. What has changed over the past three years has been the speed, volume and type of response that has been made possible by the internet, broadband delivery and digitised media." (We can compare this to our study of the cult of celebrity changing from the aristocracy's 'elite' to essentially anyone, today.)

Like Naughton, Bell uses terrorist activity to convey how things have changed with her reference to 9/11 and how different the footage would have been today. However, she disagrees with Naughton on the issue of the citizens' rights as witnesses and contributors. I doubt that "we are not far from the point where citizen journalists ask for payment for their best exclusive material", however it is definitely worth thinking about: it would be an admirable stance for the people to demand financial reward for their material. Unfortunately, I believe that the problem lies within the heart of the citizens' original aim for providing big businesses with their footage: people are essentially sociable and want their bit to be seen, particularly on television. It is not as if the advancement of NMTs is going to fall - time has proven that consumers have an insatiable appetite for digital media, meaning we will continue to use are brand new mobile phones, cameras and computers to publish our version of reality. Even if people began to charge for their material, no doubt big media moguls would cotton on and work out a way to filter their money into bigger and bigger technology productions.

Perhaps this is a cynical perspective, but Bell makes a good point in her final paragraph: "Is there a difference then between the professional journalist and the citizen contributor?" We must all ask ourselves this, particularly with the recent fall in popularity of our newspapers. A journalist is paid "for an ability to make judgements on how to convey stories or content in the most effective way", and 'citizen contributors' are simply providing their own expertise. Surely, if citizens begin to charge for material as Bell predicts, would they not simply become journalists by definition?