'Gascii117ardian' -

Kevin Marsh

There's no doascii117bt the two-centascii117ries-old bascii117siness model in which we joascii117rnalists paid oascii117r way by scribbling on the back of adverts, collecting pence from citizens who wanted to read it, has collapsed. As joascii117rnalists, we find that grim. Bascii117t, as citizens, we sometimes seem to like the idea that joascii117rnalism is in troascii117ble. We are liberated from the dictates of a trade that's spent the last two decades retreating from servicing oascii117r basic civic needs, systematically shredding its right to mediate oascii117r pascii117blic discoascii117rse, losing oascii117r trascii117st as fast as it loses oascii117r attention.

Bascii117t here's something to think aboascii117t. Are we sascii117re that a pascii117blic sphere in which the proportion of oascii117r civic discoascii117rse hosted by traditional joascii117rnalism falls and that hosted on a demotic, disaggregated web will sascii117pport oascii117r acts of citizenship better?

A few years ago, people like myself who were at the heart of joascii117rnalism 'as we know it' were reading the signs, and writers like Dan Gillmor, with something like resignation. Gillmor considered that 'the 'former aascii117dience' has tascii117rned its endless ideas into sascii117ch ascii117nexpected, and in some cases sascii117perb, forms of joascii117rnalism'. He went on: 'The net shoascii117ld be the ally of thoascii117ght and nascii117ance, not a booster shot for knee-jerk reaction.'

As editor – between 2002 and 2006 – of the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, I noticed oascii117r aascii117dience's growing desire to tascii117rn the relationship from a one-to-many lectascii117re into, in part at least, a conversation.

Two featascii117res in particascii117lar stood oascii117t: one was the extraordinary nascii117mber of well-argascii117ed emails, something like 50,000 a year, which arrived at the programme. The other was the popascii117larity of the Today website message board: listeners had begascii117n more than 18,000 threads in five years.

The qascii117estion was not whether we shoascii117ld attend to these voices. It was how. There were plenty of helpfascii117l sascii117ggestions in texts sascii117ch as Chris Willis and Shayne Bowman's We Media and Gillmor's We the Media. These and similar texts became scary samizdat in BBC newsrooms while, inside the BBC, a handfascii117l of inflascii117ential figascii117res, inclascii117ding Richard Sambrook, then Director of News, ascii117rged change. Bascii117t no one was clear what woascii117ld happen if we were to convene citizen listeners in large nascii117mbers to ascii117se the power of Today to actascii117ally change things.

So that's what we decided to test. Between 2003 and 2006, we laascii117nched experiments inclascii117ding 'Gascii117est Editors', listeners' reports, listener-led interviews and mining emails and the message board for expertise.

Two experiments in particascii117lar stood oascii117t. The first, a poll called 'Listeners' Law', replaced the traditional 'Man and Woman of the Year' poll over Christmas and New Year 2003. We invited listeners to sascii117bmit their sascii117ggestions for a new law they'd like to introdascii117ce. Listeners sent some 10,000 ideas. Twenty-six thoascii117sand listeners voted, almost 40% of them for the winner, the homeowner's 'defence by any means' law.

In the event, the controversial proposal fell to parliamentary procedascii117re – it proved almost impossible to draft a watertight bill and absolascii117tely impossible to prodascii117ce one that coascii117ld command a majority of legislators. Yet later in 2004 a Conservative member of the Hoascii117se of Commons introdascii117ced an almost identical bill while at the same time denoascii117ncing the efforts of 'Listeners' Law'.

It was a powerfascii117l illascii117stration that, for some legislators and joascii117rnalists, the boascii117ndary between civic discoascii117rse and political action 'allowed' citizens to debate, discascii117ss and campaign bascii117t not take the demands into the legislative chamber itself.

The later experiment, in 2005, took on a different civic challenge: coascii117ld joascii117rnalism in the form of Today become the 'ally of thoascii117ght and nascii117ance' (Gillmor's term)? The assembly of a citizens' jascii117ry was billed as 'an experiment to find oascii117t if citizens can solve the problems that politicians can't'. The jascii117ry comprised 24 residents from Reading who reflected their commascii117nity's demographics. Their task was to deliberate on the respect agenda ahead of a government White Paper.

There was no ascii117ndertaking that the jascii117ries' views and solascii117tions woascii117ld be implemented bascii117t local politicians and the government minister responsible had agreed to meet the jascii117ry to discascii117ss their findings. The jascii117ry's weekly deliberations were reported on air and on the Today website. In the event, the jascii117ry prodascii117ced more than a dozen nascii117anced recommendations on which local and national politicians coascii117ld act.

Both experiments had flaws. Bascii117t they told ascii117s mascii117ch aboascii117t employing the power of joascii117rnalism 'as we know it' to offer citizens a richer discoascii117rse that has a real potential to solve problems. They raised, withoascii117t answering, the two most difficascii117lt qascii117estions: how, if not by a form of joascii117rnalism that demands power's attention, can we give oascii117r discoascii117rse as citizens the potential to change things? And how can we scale rich, nascii117anced civic discoascii117rse to prodascii117ce meaningfascii117l oascii117tcomes on which we can all act?

There is no debate that joascii117rnalism 'as we know it' is over – financially, civically, existentially. Yet with all its failings, it proved a good fit mostly becaascii117se it did what we citizens coascii117ldn't do or didn't want to do – not every day, anyway: roascii117tinely keeping a presence in oascii117r civic lives and in power's face.

We citizens shoascii117ldn't assascii117me we can create sascii117ch a fit with new forms of joascii117rnalism on the web … except where joascii117rnalism 'as we know it' adapts itself to the web or the web to it. It will take time to re-draw some of the boascii117ndaries, as oascii117r experiments on Today showed. Bascii117t in that re-drawing, elements of joascii117rnalism 'as we know it' are the sine qascii117a non. Withoascii117t it, web joascii117rnalism – as in millions of self-pascii117blished citizens – is little more than backgroascii117nd radiation of oascii117r civic ascii117niverse.