APPROVING OR MORTIFYING ONLINE AND CITIZEN JOURNALISM BY MAINSTREAM JOURNALISTS: A CASE FOR CREDIBILITY TRANSFER HYPOTHESIS

Abstract

The relationship between online and mainstream journalism, over the years, has been critically reviewed negatively by practising journalists. Among the mainstream practising journalists, online and citizen journalism are peddlers of uncensored and junk contents. This study, though a review of reported events, looked at the relationship between mainstream and online contents. The purpose of the study is to verify whether the mainstream media mortify or certify online journalism. This study adopted the critical discourse analysis in reviewing what was reported in both mainstream and online media. The study, which made a case for the credibility transfer hypothesis, revealed that rather than spread junk contents, the online press helps the mainstream media in explaining to the world what is happening around them. Drawing from the outcome of the study, it was found that the online media and citizen journalists break the news while the mainstream media follow suit with few additional contents that give more insight into the stories of the moment. The study concluded that rather than mortify the contents of online media, the mainstream media transfer credibility to it by drawing their publications from the online materials. The study, therefore dismissed allegations from mainstream journalists against online and citizen journalists that they spread junks. It was recommended that the mainstream media journalists and media experts should desist from making some derogatory remarks about online media contents but rather, incorporate online and citizen journalisms’ contents in their mainstream reports for adequate and on-the-event coverage of issues