The article written by Hajrah Mumtaz titled ‘Here comes everybody’ tackles a very pertinent issue vis-à-vis the current age of information: the dissemination of the thoughts and impressions of the common man for the viewership of the entire world. This notion encapsulates the crux of the article where Hajrah herself attempts to provide an unbiased analysis of both sides of the argumentation with relevant examples to support each viewpoint. The significance of this article is indicative in the fact that it is pertinent to every single individual who uses the internet in this day and age to keep themselves updated on the news around the world and who would inevitably be the viewers of this article as well. This article is an argumentative piece in which the author tries to rationally present both sides of the argument as to whether the mass upsurge in what she has termed as ‘citizen’s journalism’: the average citizen publishing news and views on the internet, in the recent times, is beneficial or detrimental to our society. She presents the two opposing points of view; in which the proponents claim that this form of journalism is by the people for the people as they include both the users as well as the contributors of information due to which there is no apparent gap in perspective in emanation and subsequent interpretation. The writer also claims that the veracity of this genre of journalism is not affected by the factors such as profitability, marketing image etc and this allows these accounts to be presented as unvarnished as possible. On the flipside, the detractors of this argument claim this form of journalism has ushered in an era of informational overload which has significantly affected the quality of information that is present on the internet. The authenticity of the information provided by anonymous resources is also a serious cause of concern as the divide between truthful and theatrical cannot be ascertained in these accounts. The first example is of the video of a little girl who is being flogged by bearded men who are assumed to be Taliban. The author describes how this video found its way onto the internet and then onto mainstream media; and the unequivocal brutality that was depicted in this video helped in polarizing the public sentiment against the Taliban and in favor of army action against them. The second quoted example consisted of a video of army official severely beating some people who had merely been detained on the purpose of allegation. This video was instrumental in adding fuel to the claims of human rights activists against the army of human rights violations and stayed in media rage for sometime before simmering out; same being the fate of the video in the first example. The writer then critically analyzes the two examples in consideration of the viewpoints that she presented earlier by considering all the possible facets that could have transpired vis-à-vis the creation of the two videos and how they affect the worth of both lines of reasoning. The issue of journalistic responsibility also comes into consideration as citizen’s journalism is usually anonymous and doesn’t bear the burden of accountability as formal journalism does, due to which any person could move along any tangent to further their personal aspirations even at the expense of another part. Finally, despite the fact that she accepts the logic and trueness of some aspects of both sides of the argument, she concludes her article by throwing her weight ever so slightly towards formal journalism as she feels that it does hold a relative advantage in this debate. Personally, I feel that this certainly is a well written piece. The choice of title first of all, is very succinct and captures the thought that is to be presented in the article: the sheer volume of information that is now being shared on the internet; both by users and contributors. In that, I feel that the author is able to engage the germane readers of this piece i.e. internet users, who can relate to the title. The article commences with an introduction of the presented argument which is immediately followed by the proposition and opposition. Both cases are well defined and provide a basic insight into the thought process behind their formation. Hajra uses some key terms in the article such as citizen’s journalism and she has done well to define them with the appropriate degree of objectivity without creating any unnecessary stereotypes which is critical for any argumentative piece. After clearing defining the viewpoints of both sides, Hajra takes a unique way forward in her article: she sheds light on two cases relevant to the topic at hand and then relates them to proposition and opposition: as opposed to the opposite method in which argumentative pieces are usually structured. This method has a beneficial impact on the piece as the reader is able to view the example from a completely unembellished view and then see the relation to the arguments. This, I feel, is not the case in the usual format of argumentative essays where examples of proposition and opposition are read with the mental flag that they belong to one side of the argument; hence, subliminally, creating a subconscious opinion in the mind of the reader before they even read the entire piece.
Furthermore, the choice of examples is quite commendable as both examples make use of a common factor i.e. the army and shows how powerful citizen’s journalism is, as both examples depict the army in completely different lights. In this way, the reader is able to compare the examples on an even keel and subsequently make the connection between the examples and the two viewpoints.
The most critical part of the article, in my opinion, was the analysis provided after the examples. Hajra was able to completely dissect the examples by considering most possible aspects of the examples and was able to successfully link them to some of the key components of the debate: taking responsibility and ownership of the content, ensuring integrity and veracity of the content and the level of adulteration that is brought in formal journalism. All these factors proceeded to add weight or reduce the authority of either of the two viewpoints which served the purpose of using examples to the tee.