Truth, innovation and timeliness. The rhetorics and discursive ideals of collaborative

journalism and participatory culture.

Taina Bucher

MSc in Culture and Society

London School of Economics and Political Science

Candidate number: 37768

2

Table of content

1. Introduction p. 1

2. Theory and Perspectives p. 5

2.1. Pierre Lévy and collective intelligence p. 5

2.2. Benkler and the networked information economy p. 6

2.3. Participatory culture p. 7

2.4. Open source and free labour p. 8

2.5. Collaborative Journalism and “Pro-am” p. 10

2.6. De Certeau and culture as practice p. 11

3. The case p. 12

4. Methodology p. 14

4.1. Discourse and rhetorical analysis p. 14

4.1.1. Data selection p. 15

4.2. Limitations p. 16

5. Analysis p. 17

5.1. “Being part of a revolution” p. 17

5.1.1. “Speaking the truth” p. 20

5..2. The rhetoric of Assignment Zero p. 21

5.2.1. “Spirit of enterprise” p. 22

6. Discussion p. 26

6.1. Kairos and the the expediency of culture p. 26

6.2. Virtuosity p. 30

6.3. Topoi p. 32

7. Conclusion p. 33

References p. 36

Internet References p. 39

Appendix 1. p. 40

Appendix 2. p. 44

3

1. Introduction

Ten years ago Pierre Lévy wrote a book on mankind’s promising world in cyberspace,

predicting the possible emergence of what he referred to as the “knowledge space”. He

anticipated that: “The new knowledge communities will be voluntary, temporary, and tactical

affiliations, defined through common intellectual enterprises and emotional

investments”(Jenkins 2006a: 137). Today Lévy’s vision seems to have moved beyond mere

possibility. Recent technological changes have made it easier for the public to participate in

such communities. The proliferation of social networking sites on the Internet, user-led online

production sites like YouTube, the open publishing and editing online encyclopaedia

Wikipedia and the explosion in blogs have all contributed to the notion of participatory

culture. There has been a shift in popular discourse, where crowds have become wise,

knowledge-sharing the agenda, while consumers are increasingly becoming producers. This

has culminated with Time magazine deciding on “you” as the person of the year in 2006. The

open source software movement (OSS) were pioneers in the kind of knowledge communities

described by Lévy, and today the principles and values of the OSS movement have spread to

various fields outside software, including graffiti, business, art and journalism.

This thesis will be concerned with the discourses and rhetoric of participatory culture.

Discourse will be understood as the way language is used as a social practice, both

constructing and constructed by contextual circumstances. By the rhetoric of participatory

culture I refer to the persuasiveness of discourse, as the ways in which language is oriented

towards action. The question that arises from this is: How is participation constructed within

media discourse? The discussion will be informed by a case study of a recent event in open

source reporting. The event of Assignment Zero was meant to emphasize the revolutionary

4

potential of having professional journalists and the wider public working together on a story.

The idea was to test the potential of Lévy’s knowledge space, and to find out whether widely

dispersed groups of people, working voluntarily for a public good could tell a story more

completely. As Lévy anticipated: “None of us can know everything; each of us knows

something; and we can put the pieces together if we pool our resources and combine our

skills” (Jenkins 2006b: 4). The hypothesis that participatory culture entails the reduced cost

of becoming a speaker, increasingly blurring the lines between consumers and producers

while facilitating the potential for a truly democratized public sphere will in my thesis be

critically challenged. As such I will not discuss the criteria for successful online

collaborations. Rather, I will seek to explore the ways in which the rhetoric of the case

occupies the performance that is public discourse. Following Roger Silverstone in his concern

with rhetoric as the language of media, this thesis will look at the ways in which language is

used to instruct, to move and to please (1999: 31), thereby playing a fundamental role in

making participation happen. I argue that participation is above all performative and that the

act of becoming a speaker is structured by discourse and therefore twofold by virtue.

The structure of this dissertation is as follows: First I will present a variety of theoretical

perspectives that can be said to illuminate the contextual framework of the case in question.

Secondly I will briefly describe the case of Assignment Zero and why it is considered a useful

way of exploring the notion of participatory culture. After some notes on methodology, I will

analyse two specific texts taken from Assignment Zero’s website as representative of the

discourse of participation. The analysis will then be discussed in relation to the rhetorical

concepts of karios, metaphor and topoi, seen here as useful means to highlight the discursive

and rhetorical strategies underlying the argumentation of the case. I will argue that

participatory culture not necessarily implies a grater democratization of the public sphere,

5

although it certainly is one important aspect. Rather I will argue for the discursive

construction of the rhetorical situation as an important feature of participatory culture.

2. Theory and Perspectives

The theories and perspectives here believed to be useful in illuminating the growing trend of

participatory culture and collaborative practices are drawn from a variety of theoretical loci. I

believe it will become clear that what makes them particularly useful is their totality.

2.1. Pierre Lévy and collective intelligence

As already mentioned in the introduction, Pierre Lévy forecasted the proliferating phenomena

exemplified by citizen journalism ten years ago. Lévy’s book Collective Intelligence offers a

utopian vision of the potentiality of collaborative practices. The notion of collective

intelligence as universally distributed intelligence is based on the assumption that there are

multiple ways of knowing. Thus he goes on to argue that: New computer technologies have

the potential of coordinating dispersed intelligence in real-time in addition to the effective

mobilization of skills. What his “realizable utopia” suggests is the positive potential of

pooling resources together, embedding the essentiality of a diverse body of knowledge. His

ideas read as a proposition about the ways in which the Internet can create a space, the

cosmopedia, as a knowledge space where all ideas are available to all members of the

community. Cosmopedia is understood as the multidimensional representational space of

knowledge that combines a large number of different types of expressions that has as its

foundation a pluralistic image of knowledge (1997: 216-217). The consequences of the

anticipated knowledge space are the following: ”The distinctions between authors and

6

readers, producers and spectators, creators and interpretations will blend to form a reading-

writing continuum”(1997:121). “In the cosmopedia all reading is writing” (1997:218).

2.2. Benkler and the networked information economy

Today Lévy’s ideas about collective intelligence and the knowledge space seem strangely

familiar. Yochai Benkler offers, in his book The Wealth of the Networks, a present day

assessment of the kinds of processes anticipated by Pierre Lévy. According to Benkler, new

modes of production have created a ‘networked information economy’, facilitating enhanced

cooperative relationships and a new folk culture in which more people participate more

actively in making their own cultural moves (2006:8-15). “The new networked information

economy enables new ways of organizing production radically decentralized, collaborative

and non-proprietary (2006: 60) or what Benkler calls: “Common based peer production”.

What he ultimately argues for is the enhanced democratization of the public sphere caused by

the writable web. Given that the “anyone can be a publisher” proposition is starting to become

evident the fundamental change between the mass media and the new ‘networked information

economy’ is said to be the cost of becoming a speaker (2006:212). This definitely affirms

Lévy’s anticipated reading-writing continuum. Thus the Internet is seen as having the

capacity to “engage users to the point that they become effective participants in a

conversation and an effort” (2006: 259). Ultimately:

“We are witnessing a fundamental change in how individuals can interact with their democracy

and experience their role as citizens […] The network allows all citizens to change their

relationship to the public sphere. They no longer need to be consumers and passive spectators.

They can become creators and primary subjects. It is in this sense that the Internet

democratizes” (Benkler 2006: 272)

7

According to Benkler these moments of change are particularly tied to technology and the

networked communication environments. This context also gives rise to the emergence of

a new folk culture characterized by: “Individuals acting cooperatively as a major new

source of defining widely transmissible statements and conversations about the meaning of

the culture we share” (2006:293).

2.3. Participatory culture

Both Benkler and Lévy provide descriptions of a participatory mode of culture, where culture

seems to entail both a way of being as well as a way of doing. The mobilization of culture, in

the hands of the individual seems to be at the heart of the matter. And this matter is certainly

not new. The field of cultural studies is to a large degree centred on matters of mobilizing

personal freedom as opposed to the institutional structures and power relations. The study of

subculture (Hebdige 1979), the notion of semiotic democracy (Fiske 1987) and strategies of

textual interpretations (Hall 1980) are only some of the ways in which a participatory and

active mode of culture has been described. The newness of the participatory culture today

however is noted by Jack Balkin in the “freedom of speech”, enabled by the Internet:

“Internet speech is participatory and interactive. The roles of reader and writer, producer and

consumer of information are blurred and often effectively merge […] because Internet speech is

a social activity, a matter of interactivity, of give and take, it is not surprising that Internet

speech creates new communities, cultures and subcultures” (2004: 32)

The notion of Internet enabling free speech is all about the promotion of democratic

culture. According to Balkin a democratic culture is fundamentally a participatory culture,

8

and all participation is performative (2004: 33). “By becoming producers of their own

culture, they perform their freedom” (ibid.). Henry Jenkins, who has written several books

on participatory culture, notes that participation is about the work and play that the

spectators perform in the new media system (2006b: 3). Essentially participatory culture,

as understood by Jenkins refers to the new models of cultural production (2006b: 246). But

although culture is seen as an ongoing performance of freedom and the enabling power of

collective intelligence it can be considered a particularly useful tool, a means to attaining

an end. As George Yudice suggests, the expediency of culture underpins performativity as

the fundamental logic of social life today (2003:28). The notion of performativity refers to

the ways in which an act produces that which it names (2003:47). Yudice thus sees culture

in terms of processes of constant production and reproduction, constituting labour at its

heart (2003:330).

2.4. Open source and free labour

Aspects of content contribution and free labour have particularly centred around the

discourses of the open source software movement (OSS). The main features of what makes

software open source are summarized by Feller and Fitzgerald as: “The freedom of use,

change, sell, or give away software, the availability of source code and the protection of

authors intellectual property rights” (2002:15). Although the success of OSS primarily must

be attributed to its technical qualities, the most debated aspect of the business innovation

model has been the distinct way of developing the software through voluntary collaboration.

Open source software development is usually built around individual programmers,

participating in solving technical problems for free. Sharing their knowledge without

monetary compensation has been seen as a peculiar way of engagement, especially in times of

9

individualisation and hyper-capitalism. As opposed to proprietary software development, the

OSS movement operates through the voluntary participation of seemingly altruistic

individuals. But extensive research into these issues suggests that “working for free” so that

“others can benefit” is not as straightforward as it seems. To see voluntary work as purely

altruistic and community centred would be to miss the point, although it certainly is an

important aspect of the movement (Stallman 1985; Raymond 1998). The reasons for people to

contribute seem to correlate with general human characteristics, such as strategic thinking,

e.g. enhancing programming skills in order to get a better job and the benefits from being able

to use better software (Feller and Fitzgerald 2002: 144; Lerner and Tirole 2004). Most

predominantly, the acquisition of symbolic capital e.g. the enhancement of reputation through

the culture of a gift economy (Bergquist and Ljungberg 2001; Zeitlyn 2003; Castells 2001),

has been recognized as key motivational factor.

As noted open source is increasingly used to describe processes of collaboration in fields

outside of software and as such can be considered a cultural formation. In Lawrence

Grossberg’s sense a cultural formation is understood as “a set of cultural practices that come

to congeal and, for a certain period of time, take on an identity of its own which is capable of

existing in different social, and cultural contexts” (1992: 69). According to Terranova “free

labour” is a trait of the cultural economy and the new digital economy at large (2000). She

goes on to argue that the new means of production are cultivated by encouraging the worker

to participate in a culture of exchange (2000:37). Ultimately we now live in a society fuelled

by knowledge workers and immaterial labour, where the work performed often does not get

recognized as such (Terranova 2000). In these terms the writing, the act of speaking,

commons based peer production, the new folk culture and the overall participatory culture can

10

be seen as forms of labour. These practices don’t appear to constitute work, like the word

labour is ‘hidden’ in the concept of collaboration.

2.5. Collaborative Journalism and “Pro-am”

The set of cultural practices that constitute the cultural form of open source volunteerism have

expanded into various fields outside software. Especially within contemporary Internet

culture, these phenomena are integrated in concepts like: “Social software”, “peer-to-peer

publishing”, “collaborative editing”, “social networking”, “citizen journalism”; all belonging

to discourses about the “Web 2.0”. According to Bowman and Willis, participatory

journalism refers to: ”The act of a citizen, or a group of citizens, playing an active role in the

process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information” (2003:

9). Their thinking paper, We Media, is reminiscent of Charles Leadbeater’s forthcoming book

We Think. The emphasis on a “we”, collective efforts and public goods are highly evident in

the discourse. For Leadbeater we are just at the start of the rise of citizen-media, as he

anticipates the fundamental shift from a society of mass media consumption to one of mass

media production (12). He furthermore sees the rise of social media as the second media

revolution, stating that: “What we are witnessing now is a wave of social innovation fuelled

by a mixture of cheap technology, amateur passion, simple economics, individual expression

and loose collaboration” (13-14). Ultimately, Leadbeater argues that the revolution is

attributable to the rise of what he calls “pro-am” culture; dedicated, passionate and

knowledgeable amateurs, working at professional standards. He moreover provides the

following observation:

11

“Knowledge once held tightly in the hands of professionals and their institutions is flowing into

networks of dedicated amateurs. The crude, all or nothing categories we use to carve up society

- leisure vs. work, professional vs. amateur-will have to be rethought.” (36)

2.6. De Certeau and culture as practice

So far I have provided a description of some of the theoretical perspectives surrounding the

vast interdisciplinary field of what can be described as participatory culture, in particular

within the “new” Internet environment. The over-arching issue can be summarized as a belief

in a fundamental shift in the relations between consumers-producers and readers-writers,

towards what one could call a unitary act of speaking. What the theoretical perspectives

outlined have in common is the emphasis on conceptualizing culture in terms of practice,

highlighting the idea of individual empowerment and the potentials for coordinating these

individuals into intelligent collectives. There is a notion that we are in the process of an

emerging democratized public sphere.

In order to get a general grip around the discourse of participatory culture, Michael de

Certeau’s writings on The Practice of Everyday Life serves as a useful point of departure.

According to De Certeau, the act of speaking, as performance, is seen as an appropriation of

language by its speakers (1984: xiii). Culture as bricolage, the artist-like inventiveness,

stresses the way in which culture is seen as something active, always in the making and

ultimately an performance. The act of speaking can thus be understood as performative, not

only representing our relations to culture but also enacting, embodying and entailing them as

well. De Certaeu thinks of everyday practices, e.g. reading and writing, as tactical in

character. Tactics refer to the way in which one makes use of the opportunities offered by a

particular situation and as such depends on time – “ it is always on the watch for opportunities

12

that must be seized “on the wing” “(De Certeau 1984: xix-xx). In the discussions part of this

thesis it will become apparent how important the notion of timeliness and opportunity is,

which I conceptualize in the rhetorical theory of kairos.

Finally, it must be pointed out that there are many other theoretical perspectives that would be

useful and interesting to the discussions of participatory culture. In particular the role of

technology (see Latour 2005; Castells 2001), collective action theory (see Bimber et al. 2005;

Wenger 1998) and community (see Rheingold 2002; Kollock 1999) as well as the issue of

intellectual property rights (see Lessig 2001). Such perspectives would certainly illuminate

important aspects of the issues at hand, but fall outside the scope of my thesis, and are not

discussed due to the restricted space available.

3. The case

During the course of spring 2007, several events brought my attention to the use of open

source principles in fields outside software. In the field of art, the prestigious Ars Electronica

prize was given to a New York graffiti project that uses open source technologies in

democratizing the cityscape1. After attending a conference about social technologies in

Manchester I learned about British projects like Mediashed2 and Proboscis3 that make use of

similar principles in getting the public involved in collaboration. Other projects that are

experimenting with open source principles include the writing of novels by dispersed

crowds4, doing business designing T-shirts with the help of the public5, and even expanding

1 http://www.graffitiresearchlab.com 2 http://www.mediashed.org 3 http://proboscis.org.uk 4 http://www.amillionpenguins.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page 5 http://www.threadless.com

13

R&D in the form of an open call to a worldwide community of scientists6. Evidently, the

concept of open source is increasingly being used as a way to describe a wide range of

practices in different fields of society. A blog about this phenomenon calls it

“crowdsourcing”7.

“Wikipedia was just the beginning. In fields ranging from science to publishing to advertising to

fashion, the crowd was proving to be not only wise, but creative and opinionated and most of

all, prolific [...] But to identify a phenomenon, you need a label for it. We batted various words

back and forth before my editor noted that the companies we were talking about were basically

outsourcing to the crowd. “Or,” I said, “crowdsourcing.” (Jeff Howe, appendix 2.1)

The blog belongs to Jeff Howe, a writer at Wired magazine. His blog brought my attention to

a project that was just taking place at that time in the field of journalism. Assignment Zero as

this project was called was a collaboration between Wired, academics from New York

University and the wider public. The project of Assignment Zero was set up as a “pro-am”

working model which sought to test: “Whether large groups of widely scattered people,

working together voluntarily on the net, can report on something happening in their world

right now, and by dividing the work wisely tell the story more completely." (see appendix

2.2). Assignment Zero showed to provide a useful starting point and case for examining the

phenomenon of open source collaboration and voluntary participation by a dispersed and

engaged public. The transparency of the Assignment Zero website, designed as a newsroom,

offered a very large and observable body of data. Assignment Zero’s starting point and its

aims and anticipated goals were observable in posts like “about”, “how this works”, “a guide

to crowdsourcing” and “letter to all participants”. The project’s process and performance was

observable in “the scoop” (main page), “the exchange” (discussions board) and the 6 http://www.Innocentive.com 7 http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com

14

“assignment desk” (where one could find assignments that needed to be worked on). What

proved to be particularly interesting were the “user profiles” set up by the participants and

other interested parties who joined. Most of the user profiles provided information about the

participants’ interests, affiliation, biography and the reasons for joining. The website

furthermore posted information about the outcome of the project, the final product (over 80

transcribed interviews with experts in the field of crowdsourcing as well as several feature

articles) were published on the main page. Finally links to the published output at Wired.com

(some feature articles and 5 interviews) as well as self-evaluating articles about the

accomplishment of Assignment Zero (from now on AZ) provided the overall data material

available for the investigation. The aim of AZ was to cover the “big story” of the practice

called crowdsourcing, and the larger practice it aimed to be a part of – peer production on the

new information commons, by the means of crowdsourcing (app. 2.2).

4. Methodology

4.1. Discourse and rhetorical analysis

Discourse analysis is a broad methodological approach, in general used to study language in

use (Wetherell et al. 2001:3; Tonkiss 1998:245) but is also used to study the practices of

institutions as characteristic of Foucault’s work (Rose 2001:140). Drawing upon a mixture of

these definitions, the discourse analytical approach in this thesis follows Gill in being

concerned with discourse itself, viewing language as constructive and constructed,

understanding discourse as social practice, as well as an analysis of the rhetorical nature of the

text (Gill 2000:174). The latter concern with rhetoric will furthermore be of particular

importance to the analysis of the case, as a substantial part of open source collaborations in

some way or another must make itself attractive, acting persuasive in order to attract

15

volunteers. Thus another, but complementary analytical approach to the study of the case will

be that of a rhetorical analysis. It is complementary in the sense that it both acts as an

important part of discourse analysis itself as well as providing a worldview about the

persuasive power of discourse (Leach 2000:207).

Rhetorical analysis draws on rhetorical theory, dating back over 2000 years to the classical

Greek and Roman scholars such as Aristotle, Cicero, Isocrates and Quintilian. During the last

century rhetorical theory experienced a new popularity with the impact of language studies

and particularly through the work of Kenneth Burke. Rhetorical theory offers some very

useful tools and concepts to better understand the persuasive ways of talk, texts and practices.

As will become apparent, particularly the concepts of kairos and metaphor are of importance

for the analysis of the case.

4.1.1. Data selection

The aim of this thesis is the exploration of the alleged notion of participatory culture. The

notion that culture is changing because individuals have gained greater freedom through the

Internet is explored through the specific case of Assignment Zero. Looking at a participatory

online project is here taken to be a useful methodological approach in exploring the

discourses and rhetoric behind the emergence of the social practices associated with

participatory culture. Following a discourse analytical approach, the website of Assignment

Zero was examined for patterns of text that seemed to make out “groups of statements which

structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking” (Rose

2001:136). After interrogating the vast amount of data material available on the website, the

final selection was narrowed down significantly in order to concentrate upon the discourse of

16

participatory culture. On the whole, AZ’s website consists of three different categories of text,

text that was written about the project (before starting out), text that was written as part of the

project (during) and text about the project (after finishing). The website’s design and layout,

links, etc. was also considered. As my primary interest in the project lies in the manifestations

of theoretical perspectives and anticipations about contemporary participatory culture, I chose

as objects of analysis the texts that concerned the project itself, not the actual interviews and

feature articles produced by it. For the specific interest in the discursive dimensions of the

project as illustrative of participatory culture, two particular text sources will serve as basis

for the discourse and rhetorical analysis. Firstly I will examine the “joined because” elements

of the different user profiles (reproduced in appendix 1), as the motivations for joining

provides a very consistent pattern in the overall discourse. Secondly I will look at the “letter

to all participants” (see appendix 2) as representative of the rhetorical situation of the project

and the way it’s embedded in a wider context of participatory culture.

4.2. Limitations

Doing a case study, as well as Internet research poses a number of difficulties, including

challenges in drawing clear boundaries around the case and the sampling of relevant data. The

hypertextual architecture of the Internet makes it particularly difficult to restrict the selecting

of relevant data, as links broaden the context of what could count as relevant material, but

also because of the amount of available information. Choosing a clearly defined case and an

online project with its own website, however, made for a useful foundation. As already

mentioned, the quantity of data available still amounted to a lot, but making a clear and

restricted selection, limiting myself to the AZ’s “meta-text”, allowed for a more consistent

sample, and was seen as a prerequisite for conducting a successful textual analysis.

17

5. Analysis

My analysis will firstly treat the participants’ “reason for joining” in order to illuminate what

I see as the discourses structuring the project’s collaborative nature. Secondly I will do a

rhetorical analysis of the ‘letter to all participants’, which I regard as determining the

rhetorical situation and setting the stage for the performance of participation. Together these

texts show the construction of what I label a discourse of revolution and the discourse of

truth, which I argue ultimately constitutes the agenda for enhanced participation.

5.1. “Being part of a revolution”

“Open-source anything fascinates me; and I am absolutely enthralled with the idea of open-

source journalism. I'm sure that has a lot to do with my disdain for corporate, hierarchical

institutions of all kinds. I have never felt comfortable with, or been able to fit into, the corporate

mold. I love the idea of collaborative journalism where people can work together, and at the

same time maintain their individuality and independence. The democracy of it appeals to me. I

want to feel like I'm a part of something important and larger than myself -- and having to do

with journalism and writing -- but in such a way that I don't have to do it all by myself. I don't

like the loneliness and the competition of traditional journalism: going out and getting the story

on your own, getting the exclusive, the scoop, for your own self-aggrandizement. I don't think

that's what journalism should be about. I think what I'm trying to say is that the communalness

of Assignment Zero appeals to me as much as the democratic nature of it, or the individual

empowerment aspect. A community of citizen-journalists coming together and working together

to do the stories we decide are important: what a concept” (1.1)

In the above reason for joining AZ, the dichotomy of traditional journalism/open source

18

journalism is constructed as the main argument. The section reveals how this dichotomy is

ordered and how language is used to construct the person’s account of the social world. On

one hand there is the participant’s ‘disdain for corporate, hierarchical institutions’ being

contrasted to the ‘idea of collaborative journalism’ and the words that cluster around

traditional journalism are given as: ‘Corporate’, ‘hierarchy’, ‘loneliness’ and ‘self-

aggrandizement’. On the other hand ideas linked to open source journalism include:

‘Democracy’, ‘communalness’, ‘individual empowerment’ and ‘community’. Moreover the

‘corporate mold’ metaphor suggest the ways in which traditional journalism is seen as

restrictive, especially since the metaphor is contrasted to the liberating nature of collaborative

journalism in its way of ‘working together’ while at the same time preserving the participants

‘individuality’ and ‘independence’. These associations establish traditional journalism as the

“problem” and open source journalism, in particular Assignment Zero, as the solution.

According to Tonkiss: “The meanings and explanations that are given to different social

factors shape the practical ways that people and institutions respond to them” (1998: 249).

Hence this explanation can be said to have the practical consequence of joining AZ, in order

to be part of the suggested solution. The specific meaning of this reason for joining is the

fundamental belief in the revolutionary potential of open source journalism as enhancing

democracy. Ultimately she wants to feel like she is part of something more important and

larger than herself.

The desire to feel part of something important seems to be a consistent feature of the reasons

to join as expressed in the following reasons:

“I've always wanted to be a part of something that could make a difference” (1.2); “It is a great

opportunity to be part of a major experiment that could shape the future of news” (1.3); “I am

very excited to be part of a project that will explore and expand the potential of collaboration

19

and social-news-working” (1.4); “I want to be part of something revolutionary“ (1.5).

Not only is the feeling of change prevalent, in that AZ is about making a difference and

shaping the future, but also the feeling and excitement of being part of that change, which

seems to be even more important. Talk is on seizing the opportunity to take part. Here “being

part of” refers to being part of and belonging to a community, as well as well as being part of

the change, as one of the individuals that make it happen. The discourse of revolution, which

is apparent in the participants’ reasons to join, belongs to the discourse of progress and

change associated with technological developments and modernity at large. The discourse is

particularly visible in field of media, where every new medium has been talked about in terms

of its potential impacts on how we live our everyday lives. However, what seems evident

from these reasons to join is the Internet’s fundamental influence on individual involvement:

“The Internet's true impact on human society is only just glimmering on the horizon. Mankind

is changing […] and I want to experience it and learn from it” (1.6). The “anyone can be a

publisher” proposition is here taken to imply a fundamentally revolutionary opportunity,

which these participants want to be a part of. However, it is also worth noting how this

enthusiasm covers over the fact that participation involves labor. The aim of AZ to: “create

the first end-all, be-all survey of every crowdsourcing effort known to humankind” (2.1), is

clearly represented in the discourse of revolution in the emphasis of the ‘first end-all, be-all’

as something truly innovative and the notion of ‘humankind’ as a way of conceptualizing the

very revolutionary aspect of it. Consequently ‘humankind’, ‘mankind’, ‘something more

important and larger than myself’ can be seen as the powerful arguments that structure the

way participation is put in context of these ultimate entities.

20

5.1.1.“Speaking the truth”

“I believe that bloging will get stories told that media outlets cannot and/or will not pay

attention to. I want to be a part of this storytelling. The more stories that are told, the more

accurate a view people have about their world; they can then make better choices — be it who

they vote for, where they travel, what they buy — in all aspects of their lives. This (in theory

and hopefully) creates a stronger, healthier democracy because more individuals have more

power in their own lives” (1.7)

Similarly to the first reason to join (1.1), the above quote contrasts ‘the institution’ to citizen

journalism (bloging), where the traditional media is seen as incapable of providing a true

account of the world as a condition for democracy. It is evident that ‘more stories’, a diversity

of views can provide a more accurate account of the world. The discourse represented here is

one of truth and objectivity, the most defining discourses within journalism. However, unlike

the belief in rationality of the expert, the discourse is fuelled with references to the

accumulated knowledge: “I'm an online journalism and new media junkie and a true believer

in the wisdom of crowds” (1.8). The notion of the empowered masses and the potentiality of

the diversity of knowledge give people the reason to take their place within the ‘storytelling’

seriously. They joined in order to:

”Speak the unvarnished truth about the world in which we live” (1.9); because “I want to help

bring the truth to the people” (1.10), especially since there was the notion that “collective-

collaborative work is pure form of democratic expression and can lead to revealing the truth

behind today's fallacies” (1.11).

21

The democratic function of journalism and media in general shows as being an important

motive for joining AZ, as there seems to be an overall feeling of having to reclaim the power.

If the old media outlets cannot be trusted anymore the people have to take over, or like other

participants’ reason for joining suggests:

“I want to see better journalism, and part of better journalism is more diverse journalism - one

form may illuminate the blind spots of another. And the blind spots of our current journalism

badly need sunlight” (1.12); “Journalism should be more about community debate and

discussion than lecture, and this seems like a great opportunity to get involved in a totally

unique journalism experiment attempting to realize that goal” (1.13).

What seems to be apparent from the excerpts above is the striking consistency and regularities

behing the participants’ motivation to join. The fact that dispersed individuals signed up for

the project and gave similar and consistent reasons for involving themselves point towrds the

existence of a uniform discourse. My analysis identified two distinct regularities in the way a

set of statements are constructive of and constructed by discourse. Collectively these

statements draw upon and construct the discourse of revolution as well as the discourse of

truth. These discourses provide the background of the participants’ motivation and reason to

join and as a result shed light on the powerful ways that discourse must be considered as

social practice, as that the way discourse offers an explanation of ways of doing. Here truth

and novelty are represented as the primary reasons for participation.

5.2. The rhetoric of Assignment Zero

The “joined because” section of the participants user profiles suggest that they believe in

AZ’s endeavour. It will here be assumed that one of the sources for their arriving at the

22

conclusion about the worthiness of the project is the “about” section of AZ’s website. The

first information one accesses when looking up the about section is the “letter to all

participants”. It is directed at the potential volunteers and those that have already signed up,

and as such determining the rhetorical situation of the project. I argue that the rhetorical

situation of AZ is representative of the rhetorical situation of today’s participatory culture and

as such serves to highlight the ethos of this social context. The purpose of the “letter to all

participants” is to justify AZ in such as way that it attracts volunteers. The analytic tools that

rhetorical theory provides are very useful in illuminating the persuasive discourses as

embedded within the project. The aim of the “letter to all participants” is to make people act

and do things. The persuasiveness of discourse are here unpacked and shows that that

discourse is power, as it possesses the power to produce and act upon the world. By making

people act, discourse is performative. I will aim to show that the ethos of volunteerism that

was made apparent in the “joined because” section is similarly evident in the “letter to all

participants”.

5.2.1. “Spirit of enterprise”

The rhetorical situation of the letter to all participants is to persuade people to join as

volunteers, as well as reinforcing the beliefs of those that have already signed up. According

to the classical rhetorics there are three types of persuasive genres, that can be used to

convince an audience; deliberative, forensic and epideictic oratory. The text can be said to

deploy a deliberative, as well as an epideictic oratory. Whereas the deliberative (or political)

rhetoric seeks to persuade someone to do something, epideictic (or ceremonial) rhetoric seeks

to inspire its audience by either praising or censuring the actions in question (Corbett and

Connors 1999:23). The text clearly seeks to praise the actions, both in terms of its own

23

agenda, as well as the possible voluntary engagement of the public. According to Sloane

ceremonial rhetoric can have a significant function as means of inculcating ideology in the

masses (2001:256) and is mostly centred on contemporary issues (Leach 2000:213). The text

is meant to act as an inspiration, praising the project and contrasting it to the problematic

status quo:

“The investigation takes place in the open, not behind closed newsroom walls”; “what

professional journalism says [...] It’s more rational to let us, the press, do that for you. Go out

there and live your life, we’ll keep you informed […] Except it doesn’t always work like that,

does it?” (2).

AZ is here presented as radical contrst to professional journalism. The rhetorical question

functions to suggest that the traditional institutional practices are flawed. The persuasive

effect of this question lies in the way the answer is already entailed within the question, not

providing the possibility of disagreeing with the argument. The ceremonial discourse thus acts

to question the professional newsroom in order to praise AZ. They boost that “anyone can

wander by and check out what we’re doing” (2), an argument which complies with what

Benkler identifies as a culture of “see for yourself”, representing a radically different and

more participatory model for accreditation than typified by the mass media (2006: 219).

What this transparency suggests is that the elites can no longer hide, because the public now

has the possibility to check their credibility, to provide the ‘sunlight’ so badly needed (see

1.12). As Corbett and Connors suggest, ceremonial discourse sometimes shades off into

deliberative discourse, as praising someone implicitly suggests the audience go and do

likewise (1999:126).

24

A deliberative persuasive discourse is indeed highly evident. This kind of rhetoric is

characterized by being oriented towards the future, as in the text’s extensive use of the future

tense and explicit reference about the future:

“One day, stories with a thousand people on the masthead might become routine, and we’ll

know how to do them”; “If reporting in the open style ever comes into its own […] that might

very well change journalism and expand what’s humanly possible with the instrument of a free

press” (2).

The fact that the latter statement also acts as the finishing line of the text is hardly a

coincidence, as the idea of democracy lies at heart of deliberative discourse. “Free press” here

acts as a metonymic for democracy itself, rhetorically sending a message of possibility.

Deliberative rhetoric operates on the premises of seeking to persuade others of its point of

view and thereby calling for action. A common way of persuading people to do something is

by trying to show that the actions that are called for are worthy and good (Corbett and

Connors 1999:121). The hyperbolic8 ‘what’s humanly possible’ acts as an appeal to pathos

(emotion), arguing for AZ’s role in positively impacting ‘mankind’. Frequent words and

statements such as “truth”, “keep the public informed”, “the public needs to know”, as well as

the mentioning of emotional topics as possible stories worthy of getting the right attention are

used to show that getting involved is useful and worthy. The text suggests that AZ with the

help of voluntary participation can be pioneering in the telling of future stories: “Maybe about

the environment. Or the schools. Or- who knows? - the war” (2). Pathos, a rhetorical appeal

central to the epideictic genre, is here deployed to suggest that even the war, hinted at as a sort

of journalistic holy grail, can be objectively reported on with the help of the public.

8 Rhetorical figue of exaggeration

25

In addition to an extensive use of pathos appeal an ethical appeal (ethos) is also highly

evident. Ethos refers to the character of the speaker, his values and credibility. Although it is

not explicitly stated in the text, though easily traceable, the fact that the speaker is a professor

in journalism endows the text with immediate authority. Being an expert in his field, the

speaker accredits himself with coining the word for the working model of the project: “This is

a model I describe as “pro-am” (2). The speaker thereby puts himself in an elevated position

by implicitly assuming the need for enlightening the addressees. Further ethos is established

by an appeal to the ethics of aspiring towards telling stories more truthfully. Demonstrating

the speaker’s moral character (arête), ethos is moreover established by contrasting AZ to the

unyielding institution of journalism, where knowledge and truth only seem to rest in the hands

of few. Thus ethos in this text functions to argue that ‘they’ (the professional journalists of

AZ) are one of ‘us’ (the public) and that ‘you’ (as the public) can become one of ‘us’ (the

experts), essentially congealing into a powerful “we”.

Although there are more explicit appeals to emotion and ethics, the entire text can be regarded

as an appeal to the third persuasive appeal form as established by the classical rhetorics; logos

(reason). Logos can be said to be the ultimate appeal, as the argumentation of the text

functions as an enthymeme, an abbreviated syllogism9. An enthymeme is characterized by an

absent premise or conclusion. The premises for the overall argument can be stated as:

Professional journalism cannot be trusted in giving the public what it needs to know.

However, “pro-am” can, provided that people lend their knowledge and pool their

intelligence. The logical conclusion set out in these arguments or premises is that by

participating in the project one could both challenge the establishment and bring true

information to the people. There are several other suggestive argumentations in the text that

9 A form of logical argumentation, provided by two or more premises and a stated conclusion.

26

are entymemic in character. The “proof” that AZ is something groundbreaking is laid down

by emphasising the newness through statements such as:

“This is an attempt”, “we don’t know yet”, “our ideas are crude because they’re untested”, “we

don’t know what the optimal mix is yet, but in the course of the project we’ll find it”, “who

knows where we will end up” (2)

All these statements refer to the procedural nature of the project while at the same time

pointing towards a possible future. These statements express a certain “modesty topos”,

downplaying the expectations raised by the pathos appeal. An enthymemic argumentation can

here be elicited, if treating the repetitions as premises, implying that “we are in the middle of

something new”. Explicitly it is stated, “by participating, you can help us figure this puzzle

out” (2), which can also be seen as a different way of saying that: “By participating, you can

be part of the revolution”.

So far both text samples have shown a consistency in discourse. The “letter to all

participants” as well as the “joined because” section of the various user profiles give reason to

suggest that the overall discourse of AZ are rooted in the notion of novelty and truth. In what

follows the implicit presence of timeliness and discursive constraint will be presented through

the concepts of kairos, metaphor and topoi.

6. Discussion

6.1. Kairos and the expediency of culture

In rhetorical theory, kairos is the term used to describe the right or opportune time to speak or

write (Covino and Joliffe 1995:62). According to Sloane kairos is understood as seizing the

27

opportunity as well as timely action: “Kairos is not only what presses the rhetor forward to

speak but also what constitutes the value of speech” (2001: 414). However, as the Silvae

Rhetorica website states, kairos does not only refer to the way in which a given context for

communication calls for speech, but also to the way in which it constrains one’s speech

(Burton, Encompassing terms/kairos).

The case of AZ reveals two different kinds of kairos, the collective and the individual kairos.

The context of the Net era, in which the Internet has made it possible for “the people formerly

known as the audience to realize their informational strengths” (2) calls for collaboration

through the collective kairos. The same context also calls for an individual kairos, insisting on

seizing the opportunity to speak, to become a writer, to have a say. The double nature of

kairos makes speech a necessity when seizing the opportunity to speak, and as such represents

both the opportune time as well as the duty that comes with it. The necessity of speaking and

presenting a point of view depends on the situation and often does not present itself as a

choice. Certain events call for a point of view, such as the events of September 11th demanded

or called for the president to speak. However, in today’s media saturated world the duty to

speak is expanding rapidly. Not only is it expected that the President speaks, but kairos also

seems to have imposed itself to a wider public of writers, bloggers and other commentators. It

can be argued that in an era where more and more people have “realized their informational

strengths”, an event like September 11th or any other news worthy event represents itself as

kairos for the vast amount of people who are content contributors. I contend that in an era

where there are more rhetors – where the access to speak comes so cheaply – the demands of

the rhetorical situation seem to be equally more imposing. What in the Roman Senate used to

be the kairos of a single emperor or a handful of politicians, now commands a much bigger

array of participants. As a consequence of this, people who have elected to share their views

28

with the world in a blog will feel the call of a rhetorical situation such as the 11th of

September almost as string as any state leader.

Thus the practice of participation can be seen as the ultimate consequence of kairos. The

“outstanding fact of the Net era, the cost for people to find each other, share knowledge and

work together” (2) is what brings the rhetor forward to speak. AZ identifies the rhetorical

situation in the following expressions:

“A revolution was afoot” (2.1), “the crowd was providing to be not only wise, but creative and

opinionated and most of all, prolific” (2.1), “while geeks invented such practices, first with free

software […] today crowdsourcing is on the rise across a wide social landscape […] it even

made the cover of Time” (2.2).

The discourse refers to the ‘now’, as the opportune moment to mix the professionals and

members of the public to engage in collaboration. At the same time this situation implies the

reconceptualization of what counts as a rhetor. Not only has the rhetorical situation

supposedly changed, but so has the autonomy of the orator. In a rhetorical situation of

revolution, of profound change, Assignment Zero provides the stage for the public to come

together and act as orators. As such AZ presents itself as an opportunity, as a novelty, an

innovation in collaborative work between professionals and amateurs. What the project

proposes is: Here and now, this is the opportunity. The stage space made available is AZ’s

gift to the participants, but as Bergquist and Ljungberg note: “Giving a gift brings forth a

demand for returning a gift” (2001: 308). The opportunity which pro-am journalism

represents can only work if: “People are persuaded to give their time, lend their knowledge,

pool their intelligence” (2). These practices are conceptualized as ‘donations’, which

according to Kenway et al. serve to nurture the spirit and the social bonds of a community

29

(2006: 62). The gift exchange that takes place within AZ can therefore be seen in terms of the

contractual obligations set forth by this particular kind of economy, corresponding to the

opportunity/demand duality implied by the concept of kairos. Following Terranova it is

apparent that the new means of production are cultivated by encouraging the worker to

participate in a culture of exchange. Arguably the statement “the public needs to know” (app.

2), as expressed in the ceremonial discourse works by inculcating ideology in the masses.

Here the mechanisms of kairos interpellate the ‘strengthened’ public into subject positions

from where speech is expected.

The notion of revolution plays an important part in the individual kairos as well, as it refers to

the ways in which the individual has supposedly become more powerful as a result of

technological changes. The notion that we are witnessing a fundamental change in how

individuals can interact with their democracy and experience their role as citizens, as Benkler

suggests is demonstrated in the “joined because” sections, as participants clearly make use of

this alleged change in their relationship to the public sphere. The call for action in the letter to

all participants is coupled with the discourse of telling the truth. Kairos calls for the individual

to speak, seize the moment and make him or herself heard, while at the same time making

participation a duty. The discourse of truth is persuasive here, and the underlying assumption

“Now that you’ve got the chance, you have to make use of it” acts as the most central

constraining and demanding aspect of kairos.

Essentially kairos refers to what is suitable in a given context and its usefulness is always

situationally determined. Assignment Zero argues that the context of the networked

information economy and commons based peer production calls for collaboration. The

practices of knowledge sharing and donations have become necessary as truth resides within

30

the collective intelligence. These practices are being represented as honourable contributions

that are more critical than money (2) and point towards what Aristotle describes in terms of

honour being a token of a reputation for doing good (Kinneavy 2002:69). Culture thus

becomes a particularly useful resource in eliciting participation, and Yudice’s notion of the

“expediency of culture” illuminates the key rationale behind AZ’s calling on the

contemporary rhetorical situation; the suitability of using culture as a resource in attaining an

end (2003: 29). Or as Terranova notes: “The culturalization of the so-called new economy,

based on cultural and mental labour” (Yudice 2003: 19). The collective kairos implied by the

discourse of revolution declares the moment of “now” as one of collaboration and teamwork,

in order for journalism to serve a greater public good. What I’ve labelled the individual kairos

calls for the seizing of the opportunity to speak, while enticing with the prospects of an open

stage, and thereby a listening audience, an idea I will call into question in the following

sections.

6.2. Virtuosity

In keeping with Aristotle’s rhetoric, virtuosity serves as a useful metaphor in discussing the

notion of participatory culture. Virno treats virtuosity as an allegory to the performing artist,

in the sense that it is: ”An activity which finds its own fulfilment in itself and which requires

the presence of others” (2004: 52). The ultimate virtuosic performance is language, in that it

is “without end product” (2004: 55). As every utterance is seen as a performance and every

virtuosic performance presupposes the presence of others, the very logic of language is taken

to rest on cooperation (Virno 2004). As such the case of AZ shows the interdependency

between the different actors, as the other is always already implied in any action. It can thus

be argued that culture is practice as it is performed in different practices, in this case

31

participation. The concept of performance further highlights the fact that culture is

represented and enacted as much for the self as it is towards the other, in the presence of the

other. Seeing AZ as performance, it can be said that the activity of the project, the “figuring

out of the puzzle […] in the course of the project” (2) is directed as much towards an end

product, the “first end-all, be-all survey of every crowdsourcing effort known to humankind”

(2.1) as labour, as it is towards its own fulfilment in the presence of others. The emphasis on

breaking new ground only makes sense in the presence of others. The logic of virtuosic

performance can be seen in Benkler’s ideas on the ‘networked information economy’, of

which cooperation and participation are seen as essential constituents. The fundamental

change of the new era through the decreasing cost of becoming a speaker paves the way for

the performativity of culture as a resource. The awakening of the people “formerly known as

audience” (2), in their having “realized their informational strengths” now make it possible to

become producers of their own culture. What AZ as performance highlights is the logic in

which it produces the potentiality of language by means of creating a space where the acts of

speaking both collectively and individually can be fulfilled and encouraged. What becomes

apparent is the way the idea of the rhetor has fundamentally broadened and how the act of

speaking has become part of the performance that is public discourse. However, Leadbeater

contends that we have crossed a threshold and that “the action is not longer just taking place

on the stage but among the audience as well” (11). But if everybody is acting, then who is

watching and listening? And if all performance requires the presence of others towards which

it is directed who is going to take on the attentive role? The alleged blurring of boundaries

between the consumers and the producers makes it more difficult to recognize the labour that

goes into the performance. As culture becomes a means of exchange and collaboration, the

self-activity of producing and reproducing the culture of the Internet may turn into a

commodity (Yudice 2003: 331). The self-activity of the participants of AZ can thus be seen as

32

a commodity in the sense that their contribution is essential to the production of the ‘big story

that is crowdsourcing’. In its extreme, participatory culture could be prone to the

commercialization of social life, a spectacle as Debord would have it (1994).

6.3. Topoi

The analysis above showed how important the distinction between old media (conceptualized

as “corporate”) and new media (seen as “truly collaborative”) is argued to be. But the

“discourse of truth” is not new; it is derived directly from the traditional journalistic idea of

objectivity. According to rhetorical theory the basic categories of relationships among ideas

are taken form the places or topoi that make it possible to talk about a subject (Silvae

Rhetoricae). According to Silverstone the topoi are at heart of persuasion and the root of

rhetoric in general (1999: 34-35): “The commonplaces are those ideas and values, frames of

meaning which are shared and shareable by speakers and listeners” (Silverstone 1999: 35). It

can thus be argued that the shared understanding of discourse apparent in the case of AZ is a

necessary point of departure for participation. The notable presence and regularity of the

traditional journalistic truth ideal among AZ’s participants shows how discourse is productive

as it disciplines subjects into certain ways of thinking and acting (Rose 2001: 137). The

Foucauldian understanding of discourse as a system of representation (Hall 2001:72) is both

enabling certain speech, but also constraining it, as it reproduces the practices of institutions.

Thus AZ can be seen as reproducing the journalistic institution, by means of reproducing

certain discourses as what counts as important and what counts as unimportant. Here the

institutional location of speech plays a crucial role in framing participation in terms of the

discourse of truth and revolution. The experts of the field use the commonplaces to place the

discourse within the specific social circumstance of an imposing rhetorical situation. Those

33

upon whom the action depends must believe that the game is worth playing. Bourdieu calls

these emotional and cognitive investments that are involved in any particular field for

“illusio” (Benson and Neveu 2005: 3). As the analysis showed these emotional and cognitive

investments were called upon by means of persuasive discourse. Particularly emotional

investments seem to be fundamental to participation and as Raymond, the leading figure of

the OSS movement states: “It starts by scratching a developer's personal itch” (1998).

Moreover it is about passion, like Lévy, Jenkins and Leadbeater contend. The classical rhetors

knew where to take the arguments from, as does AZ. The ultimate virtues are still the special

topic of “the good and the worthy”. AZ’s argumentation thus becomes a matter of ‘illusio’,

where the traditional discourse of journalism is drawn upon to create the belief that the game

is worth playing, that the stage is set and that the time is now.

7. Conclusion

As I have argued, the value of participation is primarily constructed through the use of

language and its rhetorical organization. The discourse of revolution and the discourse of

truth were identified as the two main discourses that can be said to constitute the primary

pattern for the construction of participation as a desirable practice within the contemporary

Web era. The dichotomies worthy/unworthy and new/old are moreover important constituents

of journalistic discourse, as the craving for the new and newsworthy to a large degree defines

journalistic practice. AZ is both constructed by these discourses as well as reproducing them

through their own use of language. Ultimately the persuasive discourse of AZ works by

representing participatory culture as worthy and honourable while concepts like ‘revolution’

and ‘innovation’ embeds an enforcing kairos. The fact that the notion of change is portrayed

as desirable and necessary makes it the central tool in promoting participation. However, this

34

alledged change is not just a discursive phenomenon, I have argued that something indeed

seems to have changed, and that the emergence of new Internet technologies have altered the

producer-consumer dichotomy in a radical fashion. This particular circumstance constitutes

the rhetorical situation, which is acted upon through the assistance of discourse. I argued that

the rhetorical situation of the user-friendly web has opened up the possibility of being a rhetor

and that the concept of kairos illuminates the ways in which the situational context calls for

the opportunity to be seized. Here participation is constructed as the ultimate opportunity, but

kairos also highlights the twofold ways in which participation is conceptualized. On the one

hand participation is about the appropriation of language by its speakers, as de Certeau notes.

On the other hand participation is a means to an end that encourages a culture of exchange, as

suggested by Terranova. On an individual level speech is performative as it both represents

the freedom of participation and its relation to culture, while at the same time enacts these

representations as well. On the collective level participation is performative as it represents

the community while at the same time being involved in enacting it by means of

collaboration. The notion of free cooperation is here constituted in the performance that is

public discourse. The all or nothing categories we use to carve up society, as Leadbeater

suggests, must indeed be rethought. However, to see participatory culture as representing

personal freedom is a too limited manner. Speech is labour, ultimately constituted as

experience, even though the experience is being part of something groundbreaking and

potentially revolutionary. And it is here that we need to rethink participation and make

explicit, by whom it is, for whom it is for and for what purpose. The blurring of the

relationship between consumers and producers is an ambiguous one, with Benkler suggesting

that citizens no longer need to be consumers. On the other hand the rhetorical situation does

not work by choice, it is a circumstance directly imposed on us by history (Sloane 2001: 695).

The notion of liberation from consumption, it can be argued, has only modified itself to

35

imposition of another need, that encountered by the seizing the opportunity. The critical task

thus becomes to reappropriate the kairos of the rhetorical situation. It could for example be

interesting in future research to study participation in terms of web literacy investigating the

capacity of people to understand the proper loci of rhetorical strategies. For just how much do

we need to participate before we have encountered a commercialization of social life?

36

References

Balkin, J. (2004) Digital speech and democratic culture: a theory of freedom of expression for the

information society. New York University Law Review 79: 1-58.

Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and

freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Benson, R., Neveu, E. (eds.) (2005) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bergquist, M., Ljungberg, J. (2001) The power of gifts: organizing social relationships in open source

communities. Information Systems Journal 11: 305-320.

Bimber, B., Flanagin, A., Stohl, C. (2005) Reconceptualizing Collective Action in the Contemporary

Media Environment. Communication Theory 15: 365-388.

Bruns, A. (2005) Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production. New York: Peter Lang.

Bowman, S., Willis, C. (2003) We Media: how audiences are shaping the future of news and

information. http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf.

(Accessed 10. Aug. 2007).

Castells, M. (2001) The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford

University Press.

Corbett, E., Connors, R. (1999) Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York; Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Covino, W., Joliffe, D. (1995) Rhetoric: concepts, definitions, boundaries. Boston,

Mass.; London: Allyn and Bacon.

De Certeau, M. (1984) The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Debord, G. (1994) The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.

Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B. (2002) Understanding Open Source Software Development. Pearson

Education.

Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. London: Routledge.

37

Gill, R. [2000] (2006) “ Discourse Analysis” in M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds.) Qualitative

Researching with Text, Image and Sound: a practical handbook. London: Sage Publication.

Gill, R. (1996) “Discourse analysis: practical implementation” in J.T.E. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of

qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: BPS Books.

Grossberg, L. (1992) We gotta get out of this place: popular conservatism and postmodern culture.

New York: Routledge

Hall, S. (2001) “Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse ” in M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, S.J.

Yates. (2001) Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London: Sage Publications.

Hall, S. (1980): “Encoding/decoding” in S. Hall, D. Hobsen, A. Lowe and P. Willis (eds.). Culture,

Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79. London: Routledge.

Jenkins, H. (2006a) Fans, bloggers, and gamers: exploring participatory culture. New York: New

York University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2006b) Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York: New York

University Press.

Kenway, J., Bullen, E., Fahey, J., Robb, S. (2006) Haunting the Knowledge Economy. London; New

York: Routledge.

Kollock, P. (1999) Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Leach, J. [2000] (2006) “Rhetorical Analysis ” in in M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds.) Qualitative

Researching with Text, Image and Sound: a practical handbook. London: Sage Publication.

Lovink, G. (2003) My first recession: critical internet culture in transition. Rotterdam: VP2/NAi

Publishing.

Kinneavy, J.L. (2002) “Kairos in Classical and Modern Rhetorical theory” in P. Sipiora and J.S.

Baumlin (eds.) Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Leadbeater, C. (forthcoming) WeThink: why mass creativity is the next big thing.

http://www.wethinkthebook.net/cms/site/docs/charles%20full%20draft.pdf. (Accessed 2. Aug.

2007).

38

Lerner, J., Tirole, J. (2002) Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics

50: 197-234.

Lessig, L. (2001) The Future of Ideas. Ranhinge

dom House: New York.

Lévy, P. (1997) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. New York;

London: Plenum Trade.

Raymond, E.S. (1998) The Cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday, Vol. 3, No.3.

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/. (Accessed 15. July 2007).

Rheingold, H. (2002) Smart Mobs: the next social revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus.

Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies: an introduction to the interpretation of visual materials.

London: Sage Publications.

Silverstone, R. (1999) Why Study the Media? London: Sage Publications.

Sloane, T. (ed.) (2001) Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stallman, R. [1985] (2003) “The GNU Manifesto” in N. Wardrip-Fruin and N. Montfort (Eds.) The

New Media Reader. MIT Press.

Terranova, T. (2000) Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy. Social Text 63: 33-58.

Tonkiss, F. (1998) “Analysing discourse” in C. Seale (ed.) Researching society and culture. London:

Sage Publications.

Virno, P. (2004) A Grammar of the Multitude. Cambridge, Mass.: Semiotext(e).

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., Yates, S.J. (2001) Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London: Sage

Publications.

Yudice, G. (2003) The expediency of culture: uses of culture in the global era. Durham: Duke

University Press.

Zeitlyn, D. (2003) Gift economies in the development of open source software: anthropological

reflections. Research Policy 32: 1287-1291.

39

Internet References

A million penguins, http://www.amillionpenguins.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page.

(Accessed 27 July 2007).

Assignment Zero, http://zero.newassignment.net. (Last accessed 27 Aug. 2007)

Burton, G.O. “Silvae Rhetoricae”. http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm.

(Accessed 5. Aug. 2007).

Crowdsourcing: tracking the rise of the amateur, http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com.

(Last accessed 27 Aug. 2007).

Graffiti Research Lab, http://www.graffitiresearchlab.com. (Last accessed 1 Aug. 2007)

Innocentive, http://www.Innocentive.com. (Accessed 15.July 2007).

Mediashed, http://www.mediashed.org. (Accessed 15 May 2007).

Proboscis, http://proboscis.org.uk. (Accessed 15 May 2007).

Threadless, http://www.threadless.com. (Accessed 29 June 2007).

Wired, www.wired.com. (Last accessed 27 Aug. 2007)

Appendix 1. “Joined because”.

1.1

40

Open-source anything fascinates me; and I am absolutely enthralled with the idea of open-

source journalism. I'm sure that has a lot to do with my disdain for corporate, hierarchical

institutions of all kinds. I have never felt comfortable with, or been able to fit into, the

corporate mold. I love the idea of collaborative journalism where people can work together,

and at the same time maintain their individuality and independence. The democracy of it

appeals to me. I want to feel like I'm a part of something important and larger than myself --

and having to do with journalism and writing -- but in such a way that I don't have to do it all

by myself. I don't like the loneliness and the competition of traditional journalism: going out

and getting the story on your own, getting the exclusive, the scoop, for your own self-

aggrandizement. I don't think that's what journalism should be about. I think what I'm trying

to say is that the communalness of Assignment Zero appeals to me as much as the democratic

nature of it, or the individual empowerment aspect. A community of citizen-journalists

coming together and working together to do the stories we decide are important: what a

concept.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/katkat1950).

1.2

I have an interest in contributing to popular media movements, and I've always wanted to be a

part of something that could make a difference.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/rwilliamking).

1.3

It is a great opportunity to be part of a major experiment that could shape the future of news.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/jsykes).

41

1.4

I am very excited to be part of a project that will explore and expand the potential of

collaboration and social-news-working.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/merrydeath).

1.5

I love the concept of crowdsourcing and want to be part of something revolutionary.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/sjchien).

1.6

The Internet's true impact on human society is only just glimmering on the horizon. Mankind

is changing the way it receives, expresses, filters, and propagates knowledge. What could be

more important? Assignment Zero is an intriguing, practical exploration of some of these

changes, and I want to experience it and learn from it.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/jeffwofford).

1.7

I believe that blogging will get stories told that media outlets cannot and/or will not pay

attention to. I want to be a part of this storytelling. The more stories that are told, the more

accurate a view people have about their world; they can then make better choices — be it who

they vote for, where they travel, what they buy — in all aspects of their lives. This (in theory

and hopefully) creates a stronger, healthier democracy because more individuals have more

power in their own lives.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/kg).

42

1.8

I'm an online journalism and new media junkie and a true believer in the wisdom of crowds.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/netzoo).

1.9

To speak the unvarnished truth about the world we in which we live.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/sean_richardson).

1.10

Because I want to help bring the truth to the people.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/texx_smith).

1.11

I believe, that collective-collaborative work is pure form of democratic expression and can

lead to revealing the truth behind today's fallacies. I believe that unlike the saying too many

cooks spoil the broth, they can for-sure collaborate on a new recipe. I am here to learn. I am

here to pacify myself. I am here to rethink. I am here to discover.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/mani).

1.12

I want to help make crowdsourced journalism work. The reason - I want to see better

journalism, and part of better journalism is more diverse journalism - one form may

illuminate the blind spots of another. And the blind spots of our current journalism badly need

sunlight.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/anna_haynes).

43

1.13

Journalism should be more about community debate and discussion than lecture, and this

seems like a great opportunity to get involved in a totally unique journalism experiment

attempting to realize that goal.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/user/patrick_crawford).

Appendix 2.

44

“Letter to all participants”.

By Jay Rosen

Welcome to Assignment Zero.

Inspired by the open-source movement, this is an attempt to bring journalists together with

people in the public who can help cover a story. It's a collaboration among

NewAssignment.Net, Wired, and those who choose to participate.

The investigation takes place in the open, not behind newsroom walls. Participation is

voluntary; contributors are welcome from across the Web. The people getting, telling and

vetting the story are a mix of professional journalists and members of the public -- also

known as citizen journalists. This is a model I describe as "pro-am."

The "ams" are simply people getting together on their own time to contribute to a project in

journalism that for their own reasons they support. The "pros" are journalists guiding and

editing the story, setting standards, overseeing fact-checking, and publishing a final version.

In this project, we're trying to crowdsource a single story, and debut a site that makes other

such reports possible down the road. But we don't know yet how well our site and our

methods work. Our ideas are crude because they are untested. By participating, you can help

us figure this puzzle out.

An outstanding fact of the Net era is that costs for people to find each other, share

information, and work together are falling rapidly. This should have consequences for

reporting big, moving stories where the truth is distributed around. By pooling their

intelligence and dividing up the work, a network of journalists and volunteer users should be

able to find out things that the larger public needs to know.

James Surowiecki, who wrote a book on the subject, says that "in smart crowds, people

45

cooperate and work together even when it’s more rational for them to let others do the work."

What professional journalism says to its audience is that you haven’t the time or inclination to

hang around the halls of government or go where news is happening. It’s more rational to let

us, the press, do that for you. Go out there and live your life, we’ll keep you informed.

Except it doesn’t always work that way, does it?

We know that pro-am journalism can work only if people are persuaded to give their time,

lend their knowledge, pool their intelligence. Those are donations, but not of money. Often

they are more critical than money.

To succeed in this, we have to persuade several hundred people to donate good work to one

big story -- and to swarm around so it gets really good. We plan to modify this site for use in

future stories, more sprawling and more difficult. Maybe about the environment. Or the

schools. Or -- who knows? -- the war.

A professional newsroom can't easily do this kind of reporting; it's a closed system. Because

only the employees operate in it, there can be reliable controls. That's the system's strength.

The weakness is the organization knows only what its own people know. Which wasn't much

of a weakness until the Internet made it possible for the people formerly known as the

audience to realize their informational strengths.

Our site was designed for the "open" mode of news production. That means anyone can

wander by and check out what we're doing. And if we do this right, anyone who is interested

can find within minutes something useful to do. We're betting that openness of that type has

editorial advantages bigger than its well-known weak points.

This is not just an open, but also a pro-am, project. Some things will be decided by editors,

others will be left to participants. We don't know what the optimal mix is yet, but in the

46

course of the project we'll find it.

One place that is likely to happen is The Exchange, Assignment Zero's discussion forum.

That's where you can talk about the project, float ideas and tell us what's working, or not.

Anyone can start a thread. The editors watch The Exchange and of course participate.

One day, stories with a thousand people on the masthead might become routine, and we'll

know how to do them. For now, we just need hundreds, acting in the spirit of the enterprise,

to help us take apart and put together a single, sprawling story.

Assignment Zero is a starting point, a base line. Who knows where we will end up. But if

reporting in the open style ever comes into its own -- at our site or someone else's -- that

might very well change journalism and expand what's humanly possible with the instrument

of a free press.

(http://zero.newassignment.net/about).

2.1. A Guide to Crowdsourcing by Jeff Howe.

(see http://zero.newassignment.net/quick_guide_crowdsourcing).

2.2. About Assignment Zero.

(see http://zero.newassignment.net/aboutassignmentzero).

47