Is Youtube Becoming a Reputable Journalism Source?

My last blog post mentioned that I heard about the peaceful Muslim protest against terrorism through a video by "The Michalaks" on Youtube.  This really got me thinking about the possibility of Youtube becoming a reputable news source, especially with the ever growing popularity of digital journalism.

"Bad News is Good News: Who's Choice is it?" looked at whether people are attracted to 'bad news' is the fault of the journalists who chose the story, or the consumer habit which demands this type of journalism.  If the Muslim protest had been reported on, would the connotations that link the entire Islamic religion with the tiny ISIS population have been shaken off?  If the protest had become violent, would the outcome be different with all media channels covering the story? Probably.

I, along with three other people I spoke to (out of 25 people) had only heard of the protest through "The Michalaks" Youtube channel.  Youtube is the most important website for video sharing and is currently the third most visited website in the world, behind Google and Facebook.  In the video, Stefan Michalak showed footage of the protest in action and raised the issue about why this hasn't seen any coverage in the mainstream media.

Man holds sign against terrorism.  The Michalaks "Vlogmas Day 7"

Stefan Michalak giving opinion on the protest.  The Michalaks "Vlogmas Day 7".

"The Michalaks" "Vlogmas Day 10"

By definition, journalism is the "activity of gathering, assessing, creating and presenting news and information", which is essentially what The Michalaks have done in this video.  Does the fact they're presenting information which no other media channel has covered make them a form of journalist?

In an article for The Drum, Dieter Bohn -executive editor of The Verge- said "there is a blurring of lines between what is counted as 'traditional journalism' and an independent person publishing videos on Youtube", suggesting that the definition of journalism is expanding to cover all types of information publishing, including video.

Whereas my generation are happy with traditional media outlets for receiving our news, the younger generations are growing up in a far more digital world.  Instead of getting home and turning on the TV, they're opening their laptops and logging onto YouTube to watch the latest videos from their favourite Vloggers.  This could be a huge opportunity for YouTube to become a reputable journalism source for younger generations since they are growing into the demographic which news is aimed at; if you want to target a certain demographic, you need to be in the right place which for younger people would be through videos on YouTube.

So, YouTube definitely has the potential to become a reputable journalism source, however it might be more effective for introducing younger generations to the world of news since they are growing up in such a digital era.  Although 'vloggers' probably wouldn't count themselves as 'journalists', the definition suggests if they are presenting information to an audience then they do technically have that title; this shows how the definition of journalism is becoming blurred and expanding to cover all types of information publishing.

Do you think YouTube could become an effective journalism source?

Ellie