The truly amazing finding is that people who use the site are not the ones who are already politically engaged and organized. Those are using the site too but many have never before contacted their representative and most are not politically active at all – so here we observe a clear effect of engagement as the site activates people to participate politically who have not done so before.

Another interesting finding is that many citizens make very positive experiences when using the site to contact their representatives. Given a general climate of distrust between represented and representatives many user comments indicate a profound surprise at the respect and help they receive from their politicians. Crucially we can observe that the online experiences do at times translate into political participation offline e.g. in the form of voting as the quote below nicely illustrates:

“Mr [name of representative] went above and beyond what I expected to get, I thought I would just be totally ignored, this experience has made me decide to definitely vote in the next elections”

However, of course it also works exactly the other way around which should be a clear sign of warning for many of those politicians who do rarely reply to their constituents (see for example the MP responsiveness league table) as this participant makes clear:

“What’s the point when your councillor doesn’t reply? He’s not getting my vote in the next election, nor from any of my nuclear and extended families and I’ll tell everyone at work about my lack of a reply as well. 23 of them live in his constituency.“

For more details see the presentation (pdf, 2.6MB).

The results are based on a user survey I set up on behalf of mySociety as part of a bigger project that aims to evaluate the impact of many of their by now well-known eDemocracy websites (e.g. TheyWorkForYou.com or FixMyStreet.com). There is much more to come so keep an eye on this space. Also, if there are certain questions of particular interest to you in relation to mySociety projects that you think could/should/might be answered by this research, do drop me a line or comment below!

The BBC has a strong track-record of encouraging user contributions via the “Have Your Say” section and she cited a number of occasions in which this traditional news organisation has relied heavily on videos, pictures and comments sent in from the general public, including the 7 July bombings and last year’s floodings. It is worthwhile noting that the BBC now has a hub for user generated content, staffed by an impressive 23 people that work there 24/7 to deal with 12,000 emails and 200 pictures send in by BBC viewers and listener on any average day.

It made me think that maybe the real future of citizen journalism does not lie with blogs etc but with its incorporation into the established media organisations. Now I have long argued that citizen journalism will not kill mainstream media as I see clearly a demand for both, the traditional, vetted, selected reporting as well as the whole array of news, commentary and discussion “from below”. I would not want to trade one for the other. At the same time I have been critical of the use of blogs etc by newspapers and TV stations as only giving yet another voice to those who we already hear loud and clear in the public sphere (see my discussion with the Guardian blogs editor).

But what made me think was that contributions by the public to established news organisations might be the most viable solution for both established media and citizen journalism to survive. For once it addresses several challenges that citizen journalism and user generated content in general face:

1. Instead of existing at the fringes on some obscure websites hardly any one ever visits mainstream media can give stories from citizen journalists the publicity they deserve.
2. Media organisations with their established routines for fact-checking can solve the credibility dilemma of user-generated content that acts as an obstacle for many to rely on this kind of news: By carefully vetting the information sent in it can relied upon by others.
3. Although as of yet the BBC is not paying their contributors I could certainly envisage a situation where citizen journalists are remunerated for stories that make it into the news (as a matter of fact they probably should be anyway) which would solve another problem of the Web 2.0 revolution: That only few can afford to contribute time (and sometimes money) in order to provide content. Also using the already existing structures means a lot less overhead for potential contributors (such as creating your own blog/news portal/whatever) and makes easier one-off contributions.

However, it is also beneficial for established news providers such as the BBC:

1. User-generated content gives them the opportunity to get quicker and better coverage, maybe even for less money although it is doubtful given the considerable resources necessary to deal with the wealth of contributions.
2. They can be closer to the people and their concerns instead of relying solely on market research to find out what their audience is interested in.
3. Eventually this could also lead to a more representative news coverage instead of a highly selective collection of stories focused mainly on “mainstream” issues although this will rely heavily on whether the population as a whole will have sufficient digital literacy in order to participate.

Summarising I could see a real potential there for the future of “old” and “new” journalism. However, this will only work if mainstream media will take user contributions seriously and not just as a fig leave for audience participation that ends in a black hole. Should they deal seriously with user generated content, then this would not be an incorporation or a buy-out of emancipatory journalism but instead could result in a more democratic mass media, thereby offering a remedy to many of the well-documented and much lamented problems of mass media that are what motivated citizen journalism in the first place.