Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjop20

Download by: [George Washington University] Date: 09 September 2016, At: 07:25

Journalism Practice

ISSN: 1751-2786 (Print) 1751-2794 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjop20

The Appropriation/Amplification Model of CitizenJournalism

Nikki Usher

To cite this article: Nikki Usher (2016): The Appropriation/Amplification Model of CitizenJournalism, Journalism Practice

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1223552

Published online: 08 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATIONMODEL OF CITIZEN JOURNALISMAn account of structural limitations and thepolitical economy of participatory contentcreation

Nikki Usher

A collaborative relationship between citizen journalists and professional journalists has long been

an aspiration for many media scholars. While tensions surrounding professional control are signifi-

cant, scholars also have to consider the structural dynamics of content online and across social

media networks, particularly in an era of the corporatized and commercialized Web. The rise of

social discovery tools and algorithms is also addressed. This article aims to bring to light these con-

cerns and moves the conversation about citizen journalism forward by proposing a model that

identifies the pathway through which news organizations gather, select, package, and disseminate

citizen journalism content.

KEYWORDS citizen journalism; network architecture; political economy; social media; Web

traffic

Introduction

The combination of new communication technologies and citizen journalism bringsnew voices, new experiences, and novel information into the information ecosystem. Scho-larship on the subject has blossomed (Wall 2015), and the hope for citizen journalism shinesbrightly with the promise of “reciprocal journalism” and “engaged journalism,” wherebyjournalists and citizens are not just co-creators but are also working to build online andoffline communities (Lewis, Holton, and Coddington 2014; Stearns 2015). But being ableto speak does not mean being heard, a reality that needs to be accounted for muchmore widely in the conversation about citizen journalism, particularly in light of the increas-ing corporatization and centralization of the internet (Anderson and Wolff 2010; Fuchs2013).

What is missing from the scholarship is an updated look at the political economy ofcitizen journalism. A consideration of how the power is distributed between professionalsand citizens and how underlying institutional forces, economic imbalances, and access to avariety of material and cultural resources impact citizen content is needed, especially inlight of the changing nature of the Web. Similarly, now that citizen journalism hasbecome a routine feature of journalism, we can begin to model how citizen journalismmoves from content creation to distribution. Creating a model helps elucidate theselarger questions about these power dynamics. A political economy approach to

Journalism Practice, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1223552© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

understanding citizen journalism offers a way to discuss the relationship between struc-tures and industry issues in citizen journalism; earlier observations had already notedthat citizens had little direct involvement in news production (Jönsson and Örnebring2011). Others have attempted to outline the stages of how citizen content travelsthrough the news production process, but stopped short at looking at the underlying struc-tural inequalities inherent in the process (Domingo et al. 2008). The extent of the discon-nect between the promise and reality of citizen journalism has only been amplified.

The Web is a different place for citizen content than it was in 2005, when the BBC firstintroduced its user-generated content team; social media is far more sophisticated, thepower laws baked into the internet’s networked architecture are easier to see, and the nor-malization of citizen content into newsroom routines is all but complete. At this point, therelationship between news organizations and citizen content is out of balance. The prac-tices of news organizations are partly to blame, but so are the larger structural dynamicsof how content moves across the Web and through social media. The patterns of distri-bution of Web traffic, the spread of content across social networks, and new social discov-ery companies enhance the power of media organizations to control citizen content. Thereis increasing evidence that little citizen content is seen without amplification by main-stream media. Thus, a new model for citizen content distribution is needed to illustratestructural imbalances between professional and citizen content. This article attempts toaccount for how the political economy of the internet impacts the spread of citizencontent and then uses these insights to build the “Appropriation/Amplification Model ofCitizen Journalism”.

What We Think We Know

Overall, much of the literature has positioned the contributions of citizen journalism asnormatively good, enhancing the dialogue between journalists and the “people formerlyknown as the audience” (Rosen 2006). The conclusion of much of this research is that morecitizen journalism content is better, particularly when it adds to the kinds of stories that gettobe told.Whencitizen journalism is viewedwith this optimism, it becomesdifficult to critique.However, as Waisbord (forthcoming) notes, the “managed uses of participatory news hasneither challenged dominant power hierarchies in news decisions nor blurred the distinctionbetween reporters and publics” and the democratic goals of citizen journalism have not beenrealized.While news organizations are nowmore aware of audience behavior than ever beforethanks to the rise of Web analytics and the capacity for audiences to “talk back,” their involve-mentwith citizens as newsproducers has not changedmuch.Weneed to understandwhy thisremains the case, and to do so, we need to bring together two strands of citizen journalismresearch: the highly theoretical and normative work, and the empirical case studies.

Much of the theoretical work has talked about a new equality emerging between tra-ditional journalists and citizen journalists; the general argument is that now citizens have theability to contribute and their work is as equally valuable to the news creation process as pro-fessional journalism. Some have envisioned the relationship between citizen journalists andprofessionals as a “pro-am” partnership, with ordinary citizens and journalists working hand-in-hand. For example, Bruns’ (2008, 2010) theory of produsage hypothesizes that the separ-ation betweenproducers and consumers has blurred. As Bruns (2010, 135)maintains, “citizenjournalism’s inherent openness is that any participant [is] able to make a meaningful contri-bution.” Beckett’s (2008) “networked journalism” theorizes that journalists and citizens work

2 NIKKI USHER

together to create what he calls “supermedia,” or enhanced journalism that takes advantageof participatory content creation and digital technology. Incorporating citizen journalismhasbecomepart of the ideologyof participation; in fact, Loosen and Schmidt (2012) even createdan “inclusion framework” to evaluate how journalists and audiences work together, the lessinclusive, of course, is a less-desirable outcome.

These citizen journalism efforts create what some argue are new democratic oppor-tunities (Borger, van Hoof, and Sanders 2016). Gil de Zúñiga (2009) and Kaufhold, Valen-zuela, and De Zúñiga (2010) argue that citizen journalism expands journalistic watchdogcapacity and even builds democratic participation. This idea of community empowermentthrough citizen journalism efforts has guided much of The Knight Foundation’s millions ofdollars of contributions to these efforts (Lewis 2012). Similarly, Papacharissi (2009, viii)argues, “Finally, web-related innovation enables direct citizen intervention to the mediaagenda, reifying citizen journalists, and thus rendering making the democratic spaceupon which citizens and journalists interact more porous, pluralistic, and directly represen-tative.” Overall, the potential for citizen journalism is imagined as robust, as journalists are“now part of network in which the long-standing hierarchy among contributors to publicdiscourse has been significantly flattened” (Hermida 2011, 15).

Despite the utopian view academics have about citizen journalism, empirical casestudies suggest most efforts to incorporate citizen journalism into traditional journalismhave failed. Scholars remain convinced, though, that this is the fault of professional journal-ists who fail to understand the power of citizen contributions. Lewis (2012, 836) argues thatjournalists still remain “caught in the professional impulse toward one-way publishingcontrol,” and that professional journalists have struggled to embrace citizen participation.News producers have generally resisted audience participation for a variety of reasons—their perceptions of authority (Hermida and Thurman 2008), concerns over quality and ver-ifiability (Carlsson and Nilsson 2015), and the tendency to see citizen journalists as sourcesrather than creators of news (Hujanen 2016; Williams, Wardle, and Wahl-Jorgensen 2011).

As some scholars have shown, news organizations try to highlight the differences intheir own content versus citizen content in order to retain authority—even when relying onthis content to help report a breaking news event (Örnebring 2013; Pantti and Andén-Papa-dopoulos 2011). Similarly, there is little evidence, aside from breaking news events or softnews, that citizens are key actors in news organizations (Karlsson et al. 2015). Overall, asWall (2015, 799) observes, “While outlets are increasingly using citizen content, they arecreating new routines to shore up their positions and tamp down any expansion of the citi-zen’s role in creating news.”

Why might the hope of citizen journalists and professional journalists working onequal terms as collaborators remain aspiration rather than reality? The answer is in partwhat these scholars have found—that professional journalists are reluctant to relinquishcontrol. However, fundamental principles of the political economy of the Web mean thatcitizen journalists need professional journalists. Professional journalists find it all too easyto use citizen journalism on their own terms because there is little room for citizen journal-ism content to flourish on its own.

Web Traffic Keeps Control in the Hands of News Organizations

Scholars discussing the potential of citizen contributions to change the tone of newsconversations fail to account for a critically important factor: the dynamics of Web traffic.

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 3

Though early scholars of the internet, like Benkler (2006), saw a more equitable distributionof internet sites, what is increasingly clear is that big sites dominate Web traffic. The com-mercialization of the Web has meant that the voices of the powerless depend on the voicesof the powerful to be heard (Anderson and Wolff 2010). As a result, news organizationshave tremendous power to amplify citizen content; further, traditional structures of newsgatekeeping are able to remain firmly in place, with the exception of some key casestudies that have received an abundance of attention by scholars.

Web traffic favors big sites and wide audiences over small sites and small audiences.As Hindman (2008, 2011, 2015) makes clear in his work, big sites—such as major newsorganizations—are those sites that are indexed highest in search indices, are linkedmore to other sites and, significantly, receive the lion’s share of news traffic. Most citizenjournalism websites that produce original content accounts do not even register enoughWeb traffic to be counted by ComScore (Hindman 2011). Without mainstream media,citizen journalism is unlikely to scale to wider audiences. As Wihbey explains in his analysisof media industry data from NPR, The Boston Globe, and The Wall Street Journal:

Citizens may have more pathways to engage with and produce important content, butthat does not mean they will use them—or that they will be powerful within these path-ways… a “power law” still characterizes how attention is distributed, despite the capacityfor open networks to distribute it more equitably… there are a few significant winnersand many millions who struggle to garner much attention at all. (Wihbey 2014, 3)

Online networks, like friend networks or niche communities of interest, can have othertypes of distributions that look a lot more like the bell curve/normal distribution thatBenkler (2006) proposed. But this has not happened for media organizations—even for pro-fessional outlets that might be considered smaller—the sheer magnitude of the audienceswho consume their content radically outsizes any citizen efforts that are not promoted bymedia outlets.

Consider some of the evidence of this power law distribution at work. A study of 1.2million internet users across 2.3 million Web pages in 2013 revealed that almost 80 percentof people get their news directly from media websites; roughly the same amount get theirnews from just a single source (Flaxman, Goel, and Rao 2013; Wihbey 2014). There havebeen dozens of studies about the power of elites to spread messages across socialmedia. Lin et al. (2014) studied 290 million tweets from a panel of 193,532 politicallyactive Twitter users during the 2012 presidential election and found that users are morelikely to be replying and retweeting elite users (such as media organizations). The studyfinds that “[while] more people speak… listening is increasingly focused only on elitespeakers” (para 3). Similarly, a study of 42 million Twitter users found that just 20,000“elites” generated half of all links consumed (Wihbey 2014; Wu et al. 2011). Researchfrom Pew (Hampton et al. 2012) has shown similar patterns on Facebook in a studycalled “Why Most Facebook Users Get More Than They Give.” According to the Pewstudy, Facebook influencers stand to have almost 39 times more influence than ordinaryusers. Consider, then, just how powerful news organizations’ social media accounts canbe: The New York Times has 27.4 million followers on Twitter; the BBC has 6.65 millionfollowers.

Certainly, some people will see citizen content through social media without seeing itpromoted on news sites first, but the majority of citizen content people actually see is theresult of the capture and promotion of this content by mainstream news organizations. The

4 NIKKI USHER

simple principles of social network analysis show that the more links that users havethroughout a social site the more their content spreads. Also news organizations and jour-nalists are the key nodes—the key influencers—in the distribution of news across networks.News sites have low degrees of separation from other users or many direct and indirectlinks to other users, and they push out a tremendous amount of content, meaning theirpower to amplify content is huge (De Valck, Van Bruggen, and Wierenga 2009).

Citizen journalism efforts generally only scale when big sites and key influencers getinvolved. Despite the democratizing potential of digital technologies (Youmans and York2012), the Arab Spring shows further evidence of the importance of mainstream newsamplification. For example, while Andy Carvin, NPR’s social media editor during the ArabSpring, elevated more non-elite sources than elite sources on his Twitter account(Hermida, Lewis, and Zamith 2014), Carvin was nonetheless filtering and amplifyingcitizen content for NPR and his hundreds of thousands of followers. After the first threedays of the 2011 Egyptian uprisings, news consumers were most likely to view onlycitizen content curated and shared by mainstream news organizations (Nanabhay andFarmanfarmaian 2011). Similarly, other analysis showed that despite the proliferation ofcitizen content, news from large media companies outside the Middle East dominatedthe media diets of news consumers during the Arab Spring (Aday et al. 2013).

The literature on the Arab Spring is incredibly vast, and it is just one example, but acritical approach suggests that while citizen journalists provided ample content to socialmedia, ultimately the citizen content most people saw came from circulation on main-stream news organizations. This is likely a global pattern (Wardle, Dubberley, and Brown2014)—though discussed here in the Western media context. Similarly, while the biggestnews organizations are most able to amplify content, smaller news organizations com-pound these efforts—further spreading content shared by major outlets and amplifyingother citizen content on their own.

In addition to mere scale, algorithms also disfavor citizen content ever being ampli-fied by anything other than mainstream influencers. We know little about the “black box” ofmost algorithms (Pasquale 2015), but there is data to suggest that Google News’ algorithmfavors bigger, mainstream news sites (Leskovec, Backstrom, and Kleinberg 2009). Twitter isnow establishing content into “moments” which curates mainstream media and influen-cers’ comments on news of the day, another algorithm favoring mainstream content dis-covery. Though in June 2016, Facebook announced that it would be de-emphasizingnews content shared by news organizations in favor of content posted by people’sfriends, professional news still receives a tremendous boost from the platform. Resultssuggest that more than 60 percent of American internet users use social media to gettheir news, according to Pew (Anderson and Caumont 2014), and the massive trafficnews organizations generate from social media suggest most audiences are reading pro-fessional journalism on social media websites (Bell 2016)—as delivered by their friends,albeit perhaps less so by news organizations. Similarly, Facebook’s instant articles encou-rage news organizations to post content natively on the platform to receive advantagesin speed and distribution (Marshall 2016).

We can expect these patterns and influences on the selection and amplification to beseen across many breaking and non-breaking news events. To understand how this ampli-fication happens, it is important to think about the pathways through which news organ-izations ultimately identify, select, and distribute citizen content. We can get a betterpicture of the political economy of citizen content if we can find a way to model this

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 5

information flow. New technological developments, such as the rise of social discoverytools, impact the pathway citizen content travels.

Further Power Problems: The Rise in Social Discovery

The rise of “social discovery” services that allow journalists to search and sort citizencontent reflects not only the commercialization and concentration of power on the Webbut also the degree to which citizen journalists are positioned as a source for mainstreamnews rather than as storytellers in their own right. Citizen content has to be hosted on theWeb somewhere, and more often than not, the home for this content is on social mediasites—YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Snapchat, and beyond. These sites are oftencalled “platforms” because they produce little of their own content and host other’s originalcontent.1 More than a decade into Web 2.0, news organizations are not simply using justhashtags or simple Boolean searches on social media platforms to find content. Instead,they have the ability to use special tools created by social media companies and thirdparties that enable this “social discovery” of citizen content.

Journalists with Facebook verified accounts have access to a mobile app that isspecifically for journalists and allows them to search publically posted content with geo-graphic specificity down to individual zip codes. Facebook developed this tool, “Signal,”as a special tool for journalists, which aims to help journalists: “surface relevant trends,photos, videos and posts from Facebook and Instagram for use in their storytelling andreporting.” News organizations can use Signal to discover what is trending in more detailedways and search public posts more easily. If there is anything a news organization wants tofind on Facebook, so long as the content is public, it is open to the news organization todiscover. Often, journalists benefit from the fact that people do not even realize theircontent is set to public (Goel 2014).

Similarly, many news organizations have access to proprietary social discovery plat-forms that are out of reach for ordinary people. For example, top news organizations haveaccess to CrowdTangle, a social media analytics platform that is the best (and nearly theonly) tool on the market that allows journalists to essentially “Google” Facebook forcontent (the author has demoed this platform, which starts at $500 per month). Thepower to search Facebook with CrowdTangle’s suite of tools renders Facebook into a trea-sure trove of data for journalists. CrowdTangle is also a social media analytics tool that pro-vides news organizations with a better sense of how to amplify their own content. Onlyprofessional journalists have easy access to shortcuts for searching for citizen content.

Other third-party tools also help news organizations search through other socialmedia platforms, such as Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. There are companies whoseexclusive market is “social discovery”—their goal is to surface the best citizen journalismcontent for news organizations.

Storyful, Demotix, News Whip, and many other new companies, many funded byventure capital, have business models promising unique and speedy algorithms tosurface the best content for news organizations from social media. Some, like Storyful, facili-tate verification and gain permissions from citizens before a news organization then usesthis content.

These third-party services did not exist 11 years ago. The BBC relied on users for cov-erage of the London bombings of July 7, 2005, and sorted through over “1,000 photo-graphs, 20 pieces of amateur video, 4,000 text messages, and 20,000 e-mails” in six

6 NIKKI USHER

hours (Sambrook 2005), only a fraction of which could be used by the BBC. While the BBCtalked about how they used the content as a partnership with users, the BBC ultimately hadthe power to decide which images and other forms of content were shown and used. Now,organizations like The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Al Jazeera (all Storyfulclients) might simply rely on Storyful for content and never even select their own citizencontent to use. The gulf between citizen journalists and professional journalists widenswhen news organizations rely on third-party tools to curate content for them.

In relying on another company to verify citizen content, news organizations arefurther subjugating citizen content; citizen journalism cannot be trusted, it is too likely tobe false, the quality is poor, and someone must check it before it is used on a news site(though news organizations make their own reporting mistakes every single day; seeCarlson 2011). When news organizations use third-party “social discovery” services, theyreify citizen journalism and citizen journalists as “sources” rather than partners, providingfurther evidence of a potentially insurmountable power dynamic. Though at some pointthese tools might be democratized, giving ordinary people the ability to easily search forrelevant content outside their immediate social networks, news organizations will continueto be the ones that have the power to choose and amplify this citizen content across theWeb. Thus, we need to delve more closely into how journalists ultimately choose citizencontent to share so that we can elucidate the political economy of citizen journalism.

The Appropriation/Amplification Model of Citizen Journalism

Outlining the political economy of citizen journalism online helps clarify how muchpower news organizations ultimately have over selecting citizen content. While there arenumerous case studies that depict the way that news organizations deal with citizencontent, there has been less attention to trying to systemize these patterns. If we incorpor-ate what we know about Web traffic, social networks, and social discovery, and apply it tothe myriad case studies, we can construct a formal model that traces the pathway citizencontent must travel from creation to amplification that reveals the power imbalances. Ioutline a multi-dimensional model that aims to clarify these pathways in Figure 1.

Both breaking news events and preplanned stories provide the impetus for newsorganizations to use citizen content. There are two pathways for citizen content to be gath-ered, presented, and amplified by news organizations: through direct calls to users to sharetheir content (what I call direct appropriation) and through searching for citizen contentwhen people have not sought publication in news organizations and are not asked fortheir permission to use their content (what I call passive appropriation). News organizationsengage in gatekeeping when deciding on this content; three different considerations mayaffect selection—an immediate need, professionalism, or norm-breaking. After this gatekeep-ing process, the content may or may not be verified and users may or may not be asked fortheir permission. In the direct appropriation pathway, permission is either explicitlyrequested or implicitly assumed when a citizen responds to a specific news organizationwith their content or is directly asked whether their content can be used. After the gate-keeping process for the passive appropriation pathway, permission is never requestedbefore the news organization uses citizen content. In both pathways, verification mayhappen—or it may never happen.

Then, citizen content is presented and contextualized. It may be incorporated into anexisting news story, or it may be specialized/exceptionalized and presented as non-

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 7

professional content. After this step, the content is amplified to the larger news audience;the content may receive native amplification, offered on a news site as one more story orvideo to read or see; or the news organization may decide to specifically expand thereach of the content, sharing it across its social media properties in order to flag attentionfrom users who might not otherwise stumble upon the content (deliberate amplification).Each step of the model can be thought of as representing pressure points on citizencontent, and as the model proceeds, we can see that what news organizations select deter-mines much of what citizen content gets seen.

Pathway 1: Passive Appropriation

This pathway is called “passive appropriation” because citizens do not willinglyconsent to their content being used on news media platforms. Instead, news organizationssurface citizen content, either taking advantage of social discovery tools or through theirown searches, and select content to host on their own media properties. The creators ofcontent are never asked about whether they would like to contribute; some may findout later that their content has been used, but some may never find out. In thispathway, the content creator has not sought out publication on a news site. The contentcreator has only consented to their content appearing on a news site in a passivemanner—they have posted content to the Web through a public setting, and this per-mission is regarded as consent enough for a news organization to consider its publication.The passive appropriation of content happens with some frequency. In a study of 11 differ-ent international news organizations, Wardle, Dubberley, and Brown (2014) showed thatthe vast number of news organizations fail to secure adequate permission from citizen jour-nalists and rarely give proper credit.

Journalists are not acting nefariously when they take content without permission,especially during breaking news events. The demand for immediacy in the digital environ-ment (Usher 2014) means that journalists must provide the latest information from anunfolding event as quickly as possible, even if they did not gather the content themselves.A Boston Globe editor reflected on this, noting “When there is a breaking news [event] hap-pening in another country or state, social media is the quickest way to get the stuff outthere… For example, when a building collapsed…we were on Twitter looking for

FIGURE 1The Appropriation/Amplification Model of Citizen Journalism

8 NIKKI USHER

photos” (Tronci 2015). While journalists would rather use their own content when possible(Wardle, Dubberley, and Brown 2014), using citizen journalism can help news organizationsretain their authority during a breaking news event.

In sum, the passive appropriation of the content pathway underscores that newsorganizations have the capacity to propel to worldwide attention a single piece ofcontent from a user—so long as it is public—without ever asking the user for permission.

Pathway 2: Direct Appropriation

The second pathway for incorporating citizen content into professional journalism isan explicit call for content, either on a social media platform or through a news organiz-ation’s own media properties (e.g. a request on a website). These explicit calls forcontent come out of specific editorial needs. News organizations request that content bespecifically directed to that news organization; for example, users are instructed totweet, email, or chat at the BBC, rather than share their stories with the rest of the Web.Similarly, news organizations may try to obtain permission to use specific content theyhave seen that has been posted online after they have found the content. This pathwayis different from the passive appropriation pathway because permission can either be expli-citly granted by a citizen journalist or a citizen responding to a specific request knowinglyassents to that content potentially being used by that news organization.

News organizations’ power in the amplification process is clear from the beginning. Aquestion will offer some direction to citizens (“share your Instagram pics of fun in the snow”or “tell us where you were during the bombing”), or it may solicit more general content, likea local Fox affiliate that asks, “Do you have photos or videos to share with us? You canupload them using the following form.” Requests for content may be used for specificfeature reporting initiatives or simply to fill existing and reoccurring features on newssites such as slide shows featuring user-submitted pictures of weather or college gameday. Some of these requests may take advantage of citizen journalists, who may submitcontent with some false hope of making it big. The head of CNN’s iReport told theauthor, “The number one most common request is ‘is my content going to be on CNN?’… there are a lot of people who are students and aspiring journalists” (personal communi-cation, November 4, 2013).

As with passive appropriation, direct requests for content do not always mean thatusers are kept in the loop with what happens to their content. For instance, TheNew York Times ran nine Instagram photos on the front page depicting a major snowstormin 2015. The New York Times did not include the user’s Instagram handles (though it didinclude their first names), and more shockingly, did not even inform users that theirphotos made the front page (Hawkins-Gaar 2015). As Hawkins-Gaar notes, “most of thephotographers found out thanks to the kindness of friends and strangers.” Both thepower of The New York Times (or any organization) to control the amplification of citizencontent and the inequitable relationship between news organization and citizen journalistbecomes quite clear with this example.

In each pathway, appropriation is a key word because the content—though createdby an ordinary non-journalist, becomes the content of the news organization. Though thedirect appropriation pathway requires permission, people may have never expected orintended their content to be seen or shared by a news organization—and the passiveappropriation pathway illustrates that news organizations sometimes never even bother

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 9

to ask for consent. In each case, the user content becomes part of the larger narrative thatthe news organization is telling about an event, and it is given meaning and context. Usercontent is now the news organization’s to share with the public and the content is explicitlyused to further the news organization’s own ends. News organizations reap the benefitsfrom the acquisition and surfacing of this content (Usher 2011), from commercialrewards to audience loyalty. Kperogi (2011), in particular, has devoted considerable atten-tion to discussing the issues with free labor and consent in these cases, and noted thatcitizen journalists are rarely compensated for their work.

Step 1: Appropriation/Amplification Model—Citizens Create News Content

The model is set into motion when citizens create content. Studies have shown thatthe potential of participatory content creation has indeed emboldened and enabledanyone, anywhere at any time to create and share content (Jenkins 2008), and this isencouraging, even considering the limited reach of most of this content. However, researchhas also suggested that much of the content created is related to entertainment rather thannews (Jönsson and Örnebring 2011). In the case of news, citizens create content that eitherdocuments or is in reaction to a major breaking news event or the content they create is inresponse to newsroom needs for pre-planned or non-breaking stories.

Step 2: Appropriation/Amplification Model—Routinized Gatekeeping

In the context of both pathways, after journalists solicit or find content citizens havecreated, the next step is to decide what content is actually suitable. Not all citizen content is(or can be) used by mainstream news organizations; instead, only very select citizencontent ever receives amplification from mainstream sites. There are three gates thatnews organizations use to evaluate whether they will use citizen content and let citizencontent into mainstream news, and each one reflects a slightly different scenario that news-rooms encounter when they seek to use citizen content. They include: immediate need, pro-fessionalism, and norm-breaking.

The immediate need gate opens and shuts when a newsroom must quickly accesscontent as soon as possible. This is most often the gate opened by passive appropriation.In this situation, requests for permission and even verification efforts can fall to the wayside.In some cases, there may only be one existing video or image of an event, in which case thedecision is made easy—availability and access trumps concerns about quality. Consider, forexample, a students’ shaky video recording of the Virginia Tech shootings that was ulti-mately used by CNN.

A second gate is the professionalism gate. When journalists have more time, they havethe ability to choose what content adheres most closely to professional standards. The pro-fessionalism gate most often opens and shuts when there are explicit calls for contentbecause journalists have a particular story idea in mind that they hope to supplementwith the best citizen content submissions.

A third gate is the norm-breaking gate. Citizen journalism can give news organizationsthe opportunity to break news norms with new kinds of content (Robinson and DeShano2011). Citizen journalism often captures images an editor would deem unacceptable toshare with the public if they were generated from his or her own staff: brutal imagessuch as the beating of an Iranian woman, unconventional images such as a selfie with

10 NIKKI USHER

an airplane hijacker, or a human-interest contribution, like the video taken by a seagull witha stolen Go-Pro off the San Francisco Bay. These citizen submissions allow the journalists todistinguish their content from citizen content (Pantti and Andén-Papadopoulos 2011), butnonetheless newsrooms can have content that captures the uncertainty and volatility thatoften surrounds the kind of major events that generate citizen coverage.

These gates begin to bring some parsimony to the pathways that citizen journalismcan travel before it ultimately appears on a news site. Journalists always are choosing whatcontent to include or exclude across all levels of the news creation process. Notably, thesepathways assume that many other gates are also in place such as those that have beenestablished in previous scholarship (Shoemaker and Vos 2009), but suggest specificgates through which citizen content may be evaluated.

Step 3: Appropriation/Amplification Model—Verification and Permission(or Not)

Before content is shared by a news organization, the content may be verified and insome cases, users may be asked for permission. The process of verification and requestingpermission may happen in either order, or it may not happen at all.

Verification. Verification does not always happen. News organizations may aspire toverification, but pressures such as immediate news needs, competition, and audiences mayprompt a news organization to use user content without verification. Verification may nothappen even during direct appropriation, particularly during breaking news. For example,during the 2016 Paris Terror bombings, Sky News was reporting using unsubstantiatedcontent gathered from social media—and this was not always clear to the viewer. Similarly,CNN’s iReport, which creates “assignments” for citizen journalists, does not verify usercontent before it is posted to the site.

In other cases of both passive appropriation and direct appropriation, verificationdoes happen. At least in theory at most news organizations, verification of citizencontent is a standardized and routinized organizational process required before anycitizen content appears on a news site; the BBC, for instance, requires its user-generatedcontent desk to verify content before posting. News organizations also pay third-partysocial discovery sites to verify content.

Permission. Only through the direct appropriation pathway do news organizationsrequest permission. Direct appropriation of content may be no less exploitative thancontent that is passively appropriated, though. Requests for permission come after newsorganizations have selected the content they want to use, but they do not always makeclear to citizens what they are actually giving permission for the news organization to do(Rendle and Sargent 2016). Often, news organizations simply request permission in atweet, without setting any boundaries for how the content will be used, where it willappear, or how it will be credited. Other news organizations use legalistic language thatmay be outside the vernacular of the citizen journalists whose content they hope toobtain. Still other organizations may request content from citizens who are witnessingextreme events and may not be able to think through the consequences of giving newsorganizations that permission.

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 11

People have varying levels of news literacy and do not always know the full impli-cations of being on the record; in some cases, direct calls for content also mean that thecitizen content creators might face tremendous pressure from news organizations. In theaftermath of the Brussels Airport Bombings of 2016, witness David Crunelle (2016)posted a Twitter status update and then a note on Facebook about his experience. In aMedium post, he chronicled the dozens of news organizations that then requested per-mission to use his content/observations from the bombing.

Step 4: Appropriation/Amplification Model—Presentation andContextualization

News organizations make specific design and editorial choices that reflect theirpower to amplify, contextualize, and ultimately dominate the impact of citizen journalismefforts. Amateur content is almost always presented through a news organization’s ownmedia properties; news organizations do not simply re-share citizen content hosted onlyon social media platforms (with rare exceptions, see Hermida, Lewis, and Zamith 2014).As news organizations present content, they also give users context through which tomake sense of the citizen content. This contextualization underscores the power of newsorganizations to ultimately shape how most news consumers experience citizen content.Presentation and contextualization may happen in one of two ways: as incorporated intoan existing news story (incorporation), or set apart through explicit design choices asspecialized and exceptionalized.

Incorporation. Incorporation happens when citizen content becomes part of a newsorganization’s efforts to produce a larger professionally reported story. Journalists overlaythis citizen content with reporting that the news organization has generated on its own,positioning citizen content as supplemental to the narrative the news organization is pro-viding. Journalists may give citizen content a headline and then provide additional expla-natory details with staff-produced content, or journalists may embed citizen content withinexisting stories. This can be helpful, as readers need to be oriented to what they are lookingat, particularly during breaking news. But the power firmly lies with the traditional journalistto use citizen content to tell a story.

Specialized and exceptionalized. This type of presentation and contextualizationhappens most often when news organizations make explicit calls for citizen content. Thiscontent is often set apart from professional content by specific design cues. Similarly, itis almost always contextualized as a specific and special effort taken by a news organizationto engage with citizen content. For example, The New York Times project “TransgenderLives: Your Stories” was presented as a separate interactive project with specific languagedesignating the content as gathered from users. The introductory text reads, “We are fea-turing personal stories that reflect the strength, diversity and challenges of the community.Welcome to this evolving collection.” In other cases, news organizations create a “UGC[user-generated content] ghetto” (Jönsson and Örnebring 2011) as entirely separatesites, like The Guardian’s Witness project, which only houses citizen content.

These two pathways elucidate a key contradiction in the political economy of citizencontent. On one hand, citizen content simply becomes just another part of newsgathering,appropriated as part of normal journalistic news production practices. On the other hand, it

12 NIKKI USHER

is an “other,” an exception to the norm that further underscores the separation betweenprofessional content presented by a news organization and citizen content. Either way,citizen content relies on big media organizations in order for it to reach scale.

Step 5: Amplification/Appropriation Model—Amplification

The end of each pathway is amplification. This can happen in two ways: native ampli-fication and deliberate amplification. Native amplificationmeans that citizen content reachespeople principally through their direct engagement with a news organization’s properties.The citizen content is amplified through the site’s existing digital traffic, circulation, orviewers. The larger the site’s audience, the more reach that content is likely to have.People see the content simply because it has been selected to appear on a big news siteand, as we have discussed, without this amplification, the citizen content likely wouldnever be seen.

Deliberate amplification. This occurs when a news organization or a journalist specifi-cally promotes citizen content. Generally, news organizations and journalists are likely to dothis over social media platforms, sometimes as part of deliberate strategies set forth bysocial media editors. This content reaches news consumers who may not be directly visitinga news organization’s properties, and may provide further attention to citizen content thatmay otherwise not be seen. Similarly, deliberate amplification means that news organiz-ations have posted the content directly to social media sites and to their many followers,enhancing the possibility of it spreading across social media.

Appropriation/Amplification of Citizen Journalism Model: Application

Two brief case studies help reveal the way that this model works in practice. Let usbegin with the passive appropriation pathway.

Case 1

Take, for example, the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting of MichaelBrown, a black man, by a white police officer. In trying to understand and track the sub-sequent event, many journalists began using social media to keep tabs on public reactions.Some of this content was simply taken off social media networks and then posted on newssites without asking permission. A post on the news site Vox offers one good example: “Didthis Ferguson resident live tweet Michael Brown’s shooting?” (Yglesias 2014) and presents atimeline of tweets. Vox notes, “We are not at this time able to fully verify the authenticity ofthe feed, but the timestamps and images appear to match what we otherwise know aboutthe shooting.”

Vox is posting images and content without the poster even knowing that his contentis being posted on a site that is one of the top-50 highest trafficked digital media propertiesin the United States (ComScore 2016).

Let us consider the passive appropriation pathway as a complete cycle.

Step 1: Citizens create content. Content is created in response to a breaking newsevent: Michael Brown’s shooting.

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 13

Step 2: Routine gatekeeping. The content meets Vox’s threshold to include as part ofits news report because it fills an immediate need: it provides critical information, includingpictures, that may tell readers what has happened.

Step 3: Verification and permission (or not). Both aspects of this step have beenskipped; this the passive appropriation pathway where users are never asked permission,but Vox also did not verify the content before posting.

Step 4: Presentation and contextualization. Via the incorporation lens, content is pre-sented as a typical Vox post, with embedded tweets. Also it is contextualized through anintroductory paragraph that explains the content and clearly links to Vox’s other content.

Step 5: Amplification. Through native amplification, or the Vox’s own presence on theWeb, the post reaches a wider audience than the original poster ever could, but users haveto seek this out while traversing Vox; perhaps in 2014, this post might have also been ampli-fied through deliberate amplification and shared by Vox’ social media account.

Case 2

A second brief case study helps reveal the direct appropriation pathway in effect.Consider The New York Times’ “Transgender Today” (2015) project discussed before.

Step 1: Citizen content creation. The New York Times issued an explicit call for transgen-der individuals to write essays about their personal experiences and citizens, in return,created this content.

Step 2: Routine gatekeeping. In particular, the professionalism gate was activated.Stories were evaluated according to tone, content, and coherency (editorial page editor,personal communication, May 10, 2016). When submitting, contributors were instructedabout how they might achieve more professional-looking videos, up to the standards ofThe New York Times:

Submit a video that is up to two minutes long. Try to ensure the sound quality is clear byavoiding recording in a place with background noise. Make sure you’re facing a lightsource so the video is not backlit. If you use your phone, please make sure the phone ishorizontal when you record.

Contributors were also warned that their content would not necessarily be accepted.

Step 3: Verification and permission (or not). The New York Times explicitly asked peopleto acknowledge that what they shared could be posted, but was not guaranteed to be.However, The New York Times did not verify these stories, though it collected name, age,occupation, and contact information.

Step 4: Presentation and contextualization. These stories were then presented and con-textualized as a specialized/exceptional interactive project. The New York Times contextua-lized the collection of essays as part of its larger editorial page efforts to understand the

14 NIKKI USHER

challenges transgender individuals face. The project was presented as an interactive andwas given its own designated space and specialized design on The New York Times page.

Step 5: Amplification. The project received both deliberate and native amplification; inparticular, The New York Times promoted “Transgender Today” when it first launched on itsFacebook page.

Conclusion

This article has introduced considerations about how the political economy of theWeb as a whole influences the spread and distribution of content and proposed a modelthat explains the various pressure points through which citizen content is subjugated tothe professional news production process. As scholars, it is critical to realize that beyondconversations about news norms and relationships between citizen and professional jour-nalists lie structural barriers built into the way that information is distributed online. Even ifcitizens and journalists really do operate as partners, the overarching power norms of bothinternet and social media distribution reflect that the power to dictate the news agendastems from news organizations; they are simply bigger sites with bigger networks con-nected to more people than any ordinary citizen journalist could ever be.

What this means is that we need to be especially critical about the pathwaysthrough which citizen journalism becomes part of the overall news conversation. Isolat-ing the points in the professional news production process where citizen content is gath-ered, selected, evaluated, contextualized, and distributed allows us to show how somecitizen content gets heard while some does not. The creation of a model was intendedto be a starting point for further empirical testing. The model is necessarily more fluidthan what is outlined here; perhaps there needs to be further consideration of wherepermission and verification occur, and perhaps there are additional gates or the gatesmay be more overlapping than this model presents. Regardless, we need to map theway that citizen content makes it from a hashtagged tweet, for example, to the homepage of a major news outlet. Without understanding these pathways, we cannot makesense of citizen journalism as a process, particularly if we continue to explore isolatedcase studies. The political economy of citizen journalism is an area rich for exploration,particularly if the aspiration is a more engaged relationship between professional journal-ists and ordinary citizens.

NOTE

1. The relationship between citizen content and social media companies is a separate discus-sion with its own concerns about labor, privacy, and beyond (Silverman 2015).

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 15

REFERENCES

Aday, Sean, Henry Farrell, Deen Freelon, Mark Lynch, John Sides, and Michael Dewer. 2013.“Watching From Afar: Media Consumption Patterns Around the Arab Spring.” American Be-havioral Scientist 57 (7): 899–919.

Anderson, Monica, and Andrea Caumont. 2014. How Social Media is Reshaping News. Washington,D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Anderson, Chris, and Michael Wolff. 2010. “The Web is Dead. Long Live the Internet.”Wired Maga-zine August 17: 18.

Beckett, Charlie. 2008. Supermedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save the World. Malden, MA: JohnWiley & Sons.

Bell, Emily. 2016. “Facebook is Eating the World.” Columbia Journalism Review, March 7. http://www.cjr.org/analysis/facebook_and_media.php.

Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks. New Haven: Yale University Press.Borger, Merel, Anita van Hoof, and Jose Sanders. 2016. “Expecting Reciprocity: Towards a Model

of the Participant’s Perspective on Participatory Journalism.” New Media & Society 18 (5):708–725.

Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, Axel. 2010. “News Produsage in a Pro-Am Mediasphere: Why Citizen Journalism Matters.”In News Online: Transformations and Continuities, edited by Graham Meikle and GuyRedden, 132–147. London: Palgrave McMillan.

Carlson, Matt. 2011. On the Condition of Anonymity: Unnamed Sources and the Battle for Journal-ism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Carlsson, Eric, and Bo Nilsson. 2015. “Technologies of Participation: Community News and SocialMedia in Northern Sweden.” Journalism 1–16 (published online before print).

ComScore. 2016. “ComScore Ranks the Top 50 U.S. Digital Media Properties for January 2016.”February 24. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings/comScore-Ranks-the-Top-50-US-Digital-Media-Properties-for-January-2016.

Crunelle, David. 2016. “The Art of Being in the Wrong Place at the Right Time: Behind the Scenesof Social Media Newsgathering” [Web log post], March 16. https://medium.com/@emhub/the-art-of-being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-right-time-behind-the-scenes-of-social-media-3ee558630e93#.dzjb2b56r.

De Valck, Kristine, Gerrit H. Van Bruggen, and Berend Wierenga. 2009. “Virtual Communities: AMarketing Perspective.” Decision Support Systems 47 (3): 185–203.

Domingo, David, Thorsten Quandt, Ari Heinonen, Steve Pauluseen, Jane Singer, and Marina Vijo-novic. 2008. “Participatory Journalism Practices in the Media and Beyond: An InternationalComparison of Initiatives in Online Newspapers.” Journalism Practice 2 (3): 326–342.

Flaxman, Seth, Sharad Goel, and Justin M. Rao. 2013. “Ideological Segregation and the Effects ofSocial Media on News Consumption.” SSRN Electronic Journal 1–42. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2363701.

Fuchs, Christian. 2013. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.Gil de Zúñíga, Homero. 2009. “Blogs, Journalism and Political Participation.” In Journalism and

Citizenship: New Agendas in Communication, edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 108–122.New York: Routledge.

Goel, Vindu. 2014. “Flipping the Switches on Facebook’s Privacy Controls.” The New York Times,January 29 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/technology/personaltech/on-facebook-deciding-who-knows-youre-a-dog.html?_r=0.

16 NIKKI USHER

Hampton, Keith N., Lauren Goulet, Cameron Marlow, and Lee Rainie. 2012. Why Most FacebookUsers Get More Than They Give: The Effect of Facebook ‘Power Users’ on Everybody Else.Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Facebookusers_2.3.12.pdf.

Hawkins-Gaar, Katie. 2015. “Instagrammers Discover Front-page NYT Placement by Chance.”Poynter, January 29. http://www.poynter.org/2015/instagrammers-discover-front-page-nyt-placement-by-chance/315887/.

Hermida, Alfred. 2011. “Mechanisms of Participation.” In Participatory Journalism: Guarding OpenGates at Online Newspapers, edited by Jane B. Singer, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, AlfredHermida, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, and Marina Vujnovic, 13–33.New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hermida, Alfred, Seth C. Lewis, and Rodrigo Zamith. 2014. “Sourcing the Arab Spring: A CaseStudy of Andy Carvin’s Sources on Twitter During the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (3): 479–499.

Hermida, Alfred, and Neil Thurman. 2008. “A Clash of Cultures.” Journalism Practice 2 (3): 343–356.Hindman, Matthew. 2008. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Hindman, Matthew. 2011. Less of the same: The Lack of Local News on the Internet. Washington,

D.C.: The Federal Communications Commission. www.fcc.gov/document/media-ownership-study-6-submitted-study.

Hindman, Matthew. 2015. Stickier News. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Shorenstein Center.Hujanen, Janna. 2016. “Participation and the Blurring Values of Journalism.” Journalism Studies 1–

10, published online before print.Jenkins, Henry. 2008. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. Cambridge: MIT

Press.Jönsson, Anna Maria, and Henrik Örnebring. 2011. “User-Generated Content and the News:

Empowerment of Citizens or Interactive Illusion?” Journalism Practice 5 (2): 127–144.Karlsson, Michael, Annika Bergström, Christer Clerwall, and Karin Fast. 2015. “Participatory Jour-

nalism–The (r) Evolution That Wasn’t. Content and User Behavior in Sweden 2007–2013.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20 (3): 295–311.

Kaufhold, Kelly, Sebastian Valenzuela, and Homero De Zúñiga. 2010. “Citizen Journalism andDemocracy: How User-generated News Use Relates to Political Knowledge and Partici-pation.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 87 (3–4): 515–529.

Kperogi, Farooq A. 2011. “Cooperation with the Corporation? CNN and the Hegemonic Coopta-tion of Citizen Journalism Through iReport.com.” New Media & Society 13 (2): 314–329.

Leskovec, Jura, Lars Backstrom, and Jon Kleinberg. 2009. “Meme-tracking and the Dynamics ofthe News Cycle.” Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowl-edge Discovery and Data Mining - KDD 09: 497–506.

Lewis, Seth C. 2012. “From Journalism to Information: The Transformation of the Knight Foun-dation and News Innovation.” Mass Communication and Society 15 (3): 836–866.

Lewis, Seth C., Avery Holton, and Mark Coddington. 2014. “Reciprocal Journalism.” JournalismPractice 8 (2): 229–241.

Lin, Yu-Ru, Brian Keegan, Drew Margolin, and David Lazer. 2014. “Rising Tides or Rising Stars?Dynamics of Shared Attention on Twitter during Media Events.” PLoS ONE 9 (5): 1–12.

Loosen, Wiebke, and Jan-Hinrik Schmidt. 2012. “(Re-)Discovering The Audience: The Relationshipbetween Journalism and Audience in Networked Digital Media.” Information, Communi-cation & Society 15 (6): 867–887.

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 17

Marshall, Jack. 2016. “Facebook Says Users Show Preference For Instant Articles Over Mobile WebArticles.” The Wall Street Journal, April 12. http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-says-users-show-preference-for-instant-articles-over-mobile-web-articles-1460497160.

Nanabhay, Mohamed and Roxane Farmanfarmaian. 2011. “From Spectacle to Spectacular: HowPhysical Space, Social Media and Mainstream Broadcast Amplified the Public Sphere inEgypt’s ‘Revolution’.” The Journal of North African Studies 16 (4): 573–603.

Örnebring, Henrik. 2013. “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better? Professional Journalists onCitizen Journalism in Six European Countries.” International Communication Gazette 75(1): 35–53.

Pantti, Mervi and Kari Andén-Papadopoulos. 2011. “Transparency and Trustworthiness: Strategiesfor Incorporating Amateur Photography into News Discourse.” In Amateur Images andGlobal News, edited by Kari Andén-Papadopoulos, and Mervi Pantti, 99–112. Chicago, IL:Intellect, The University of Chicago Press.

Papacharissi, Zizi. 2009. “The Citizen is the Message: Alternative Modes of Civic Engagement.” InJournalism and Citizenship: New Agendas in Communication, edited by Zizi Papacharissi,vii–xii. New York: Routledge.

Pasquale, Frank. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Infor-mation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rendle, Adam, and Jenni Sargent. 2016. “The Complexities of Copyright and Eyewitness Media.”Presentation at The International Journalism Festival, Preugia, Italy, April 9.

Robinson, Sue and Cathy DeShano. 2011. “‘Anyone Can Know’: Citizen Journalism and the Inter-pretive Community of the Mainstream Press.” Journalism 12 (8): 963–982.

Rosen, Jay. 2006. “The People Formerly Known as the Audience.” Pressthink.org, June 27. http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.

Sambrook, Richard. 2005. “Citizen Journalism and the BBC.” Nieman Reports, December 15.Shoemaker, Pamela J., and Tim Vos. 2009. Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge.Silverman, Jacob. 2015. Terms of Service: Social Media and the Price of Constant Connection.

New York: Harper Collins.Stearns, Josh. 2015. “Building Journalism with Community, Not For It.” [Web log post], January 20.

https://medium.com/the-local-news-lab/building-journalism-with-community-not-for-it-5c319992aebf#.xkfk5gu8e.

Transgender Today. 2015. The New York Times. May 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/opinion/the-quest-for-transgender-equality.html.

Tronci, Ludovica. 2015. “User-Generated Content a Boon to Newspapers, with Asteriks.” NewEngland Press Association, June 25. http://www.nenpa.com/e-bulletin/story/eb-user-generated-content-boon-newspapers-asteriks.

Usher, Nikki. 2011. “Professional Journalists, Hands Off!: Citizen Journalism as Civic Responsibil-ity.” In Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights, edited by Robert McChesneyand Victor Pickard, 264–276. New York: The Free Press.

Usher, Nikki. 2014. Making News at The New York Times. Ann Arbor, MI: University of MichiganPress.

Waisbord, Silvio. forthcoming. “Afterword: Crisis, What Crisis?” In Rethinking Journalism Again:Societal Role and Public Relevance in a Digital Age edited by Chris Peters and MarcelBroersma. New York: Routledge.

Wall, Melissa. 2015. “Citizen Journalism: A Retrospective on What We Know, an Agenda for WhatWe Don’t.” Digital Journalism 3 (6): 797–813.

18 NIKKI USHER

Wardle, Claire, Sam Dubberley, and Pete Brown. 2014. Amateur Footage: A Global Study of User-Generated Content in TV and Online News Output. New York: Columbia University School ofJournalism, Tow Center for Digital Journalism. http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Tow-Center-Amateur-Footage-A-Global-Study-of-User-Generated-Content-in-TV-and-Online-News-Output.pdf.

Wihbey, John. 2014. The Challenges of Democratizing News and Information: Examining Data onSocial Media, Viral Patterns and Digital Influence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Shor-enstein Center.

Williams, Andrew, Claire Wardle, and Karin Wahl-Jorgensen. 2011. “Have They Got News For Us?”Journalism Practice 5 (1): 85–99.

Wu, Shaomei, Jake Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. “Who Says What toWhom on Twitter.” Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web -WWW 11: 705–714.

Yglesias, Matthew. 2014. “Did this Ferguson resident live-tweet Michael Brown’s killing?”Vox. August 15. http://www.vox.com/2014/8/15/6007155/did-this-ferguson-resident-live-tweet-michael-browns-killing.

Youmans, William, and Jillian York. 2012. “Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements,Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements.”Journal of Communication 62 (2): 315–329.

Nikki Usher, School of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University, USA. E-mail:nusher@gwu.edu

THE APPROPRIATION/AMPLIFICATION MODEL 19