| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Unfettered 'citizen journalism' too risky |
| 2007-12-13 |
| You're beginning to get a lot more news ... from you. It ranges from the CNN YouTube debates to political blogs to cellphone video of that sniper who opened fire at an Omaha Mall. These are all examples of so called "citizen journalism," the hot new extension of the news business where the audience becomes the reporter. Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend. The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip. But unlike those other professions, journalism — at least in the United States — has never adopted uniform self-regulating standards. There are commonly accepted ethical principals — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principals is voluntary. There is no licensing, testing, mandatory education or boards of review. Most other professions do a poor job of self-regulation, but at least they have mechanisms to regulate themselves. Journalists do not. So without any real standards, anyone has a right to declare himself or herself a journalist. Major media outlets also encourage it. Citizen journalism allows them to involve audiences, and it is a free source of information and video. But it is also ripe for abuse. CNN's last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton's l3sbian, g@y, bisecksual and transgender steering committee. False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors. There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com. Having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It's just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere. Journalism organizations should head that off. Citizen reports can be a valuable addition to news and information flow with some protections: • Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity. • They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning. • Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified. Journalists generally don't like any kind of standards or regulation. Many argue that standards could infringe on freedom of the press and journalism shouldn't be regulated. But we have already seen the line between news and entertainment blur enough to destroy significant credibility. Continuing to do nothing as information flow changes will further erode it. Journalism organizations who choose to do nothing may soon find the line between professional and citizen journalism gone as well as the trust of their audiences. |
| Posted by:Gabby Cussworth |
| #31 Unfettered 'citizen journalism' too risky MSM--> Out and Out Lies aside... countless :) RE: The Fettered MSM: The list of tells and examples of biases and thundering Group Think expressed by the Main Stream Media are so long it isn't doable by any one person no matter how gifted she or he may be.. There have been hundreds of polls given to various groups of media types, journalists and Rapporteurs™ and many of them have been published! One poll repeated every four years produces the same Shocking result! LOL! Both times back in the 90s the White House Press Corps voted for Bill Clinton nine to one! **************** Bias, subtle, some not.. Well.. A developing story which may have a negative impact on let's say Congressman Smith and you'll notice that Rapporteurs™ & Editors will rather consistently write it up this way... Congressman Smith, a Republican Nevada and cultural conservative, is currently disputing $50 thousand dollars in Government matching funds from last years election. * Whereas if the perp is a Screaming Liberal demoCra'p.. Congressman Smith, Nevada, is currently disputing $50 thousand dollars in Government matching funds from last years election that he won in a huge landslide. It is endless... ****************** [btw, * In our story the Republican also won in a landslide! ] |
| Posted by: RD 2007-12-13 23:25 |
| #30 DAVID HAZINSKI APPARENTLY FAILED UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THROUGH OUT HIS ENTIRE EDUCATION. DAVID HAZINSKI DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT. “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2007-12-13 19:38 |
| #29 "you amateurs keep ya noses outta where they don't belong. Leave the Fixed that for ya', #16 Ghost. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-12-13 19:37 |
| #28 But we have already seen the line between news and entertainment blur enough to destroy significant credibility. Significant? I don't think so. I agree, there's no credibility at all. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-12-13 17:07 |
| #27 glad people are talking about this, we talked about this on blogflict today - blog.iconflict.com - this is a critical time for citizen journalists. |
| Posted by: Jason 2007-12-13 17:07 |
| #26 This line is pure garbage: "Information without journalistic standards is called gossip" It's right there in the story, and increasingly such ignorance in print is commonplace. Information without journalistic standards is information. It may be unreported, or unpublicized, or unknown, but it becomes gossip when it is altered beyond recognition, by design or omission, and all too often from exactly the "journalists" so deservingly embattled these days. Power to the Peepel! |
| Posted by: Glung McGurque2454 2007-12-13 16:42 |
| #25 Mr. Hazinski is the enemy. The bought and paid for propaganda arm of the Islamofacists. Of course they are going to trash the only source of real news that threatens their monopoly. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-12-13 16:34 |
| #24 We've got to protect our phone balony jobs! Give the editor a hurumph! As old media and hollywood become less important-influential, they must re-make themselves into the absolute authority so the Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity. But what will Green Helmut Guy do? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2007-12-13 15:03 |
| #23 LOL, I know who Richard Arbusto is now! :) Hi AC! |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-12-13 14:14 |
| #22 No, we aren't journalists. We are citizen-reporters, attempting to conform to the old-fashioned Who/What/When/Where/Why. Not journalists, who use reports of events to shape opinions, and thus attempt to shape future events. And when we lie, if it's important enough, others amongst the citizenry demonstrate that we did so -- ever so much more effective than editorial staff. But then, the journalist in question is an associate professor in a shrinking field, so we must understand why he's upset. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-12-13 14:13 |
| #21 Perhaps Mr. Hazinski would be kind enough to sell us rubes Indulgences so we may forth and journal. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-12-13 13:26 |
| #20 This is as good a time as any to bring up the Rosetta Stone of media bias, Thomas M. Frank's remarkable cultural history The Conquest of Cool Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism. This documents the symbiosis of the news media, entertainment, and advertising with the so-called youth counter-culture of the 60s and its various cultural outgrowths. In particular, it explains the commercial incentives for the rise of an institutionalized leftist subculture within the media-industrial complex, and the reasons for that subculture's continued dominance. Written before the rise of the blogosphere (1997), it sets the stage for today's ongoing challenge to media power. |
| Posted by: Dick Arbusto, CEO of Hallibushwater 2007-12-13 13:21 |
| #19 He owns Intelligent Media Consultants, LLC, a company responsible for training the staffs and helping to launch eight television networks around the world, mostly on the sub-continent. These include Aaj Tak and CNN-IBN in India and GEO TV in Pakistan. IN TOUCHISTAN! Guess his interests do not lie with the USA. He has also consulted for broadcasters and publishers such as the Voice of America, Gramedia in Indonesia, and Alsumaria in Beirut and Baghdad. While on the faculty, Hazinski spent two years as writer, co-host and technology advisor of the internationally syndicated World Business Review with Caspar Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan. Before coming to UGA, Hazinski served six years as an international correspondent for NBC News, covering the U.S., Europe, and Central America -- and ten years before that as a TV reporter with stations in Charlotte and Pittsburgh. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-12-13 13:19 |
| #18 His bio and such are here |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-12-13 13:17 |
| #17 Thomas Paine is spinning in his grave. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2007-12-13 11:57 |
| #16 Yeah, you amateurs keep ya noses outta where they don't belong. Leave the journalism to the professionals. |
| Posted by: Thge Ghost of Walter Duranty 2007-12-13 11:31 |
| #15 Most other professions do a poor job of self-regulation, but at least they have mechanisms to regulate themselves. Journalists do not. Thus the rise of citizen journalism to combat the fraud and bias of the MSM. Funny how he listed as examples two events that were frauds propagated by CNN and the Clinton campaign which were quickly debunked on the Internet blogs rather than by the MSM itself. |
| Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611 2007-12-13 11:21 |
| #14 CNN's last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton's l3sbian, g@y, bisecksual and transgender steering committee Then the problem was with CNN. Journalist, regulate thyself. |
| Posted by: charger 2007-12-13 11:16 |
| #13 "Certify citizen journalists"? I got yer certification right here, pal... |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-12-13 11:01 |
| #12 It is funny to talk to "journalists" on the subject, because even though they proudly "have no ethical standards", a resolution they reach on an annual basis, they religiously adhere to their non-standards and insist there is no other way for "journalists" to behave. In other words, their entire industry has a glass-like rigidity to change of any kind, be it in their practices or ethics, or even their business model. And this is taught in every journalism department in every university. It is to the point of when *anyone* suggests *any* change, they put their fingers in their ears and yell "La-la-la-la-la! I can't hear you!" What possible future could journalism face other than collapse? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-12-13 09:49 |
| #11 Journalists generally don't like any kind of standards or regulation. Yeah. No shit. Thanks for that inside info... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-12-13 09:44 |
| #10 While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. So it isn't journalism. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend. But it is somehow "the news industry" and subject to monitoring and regulation by journalists. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-12-13 09:28 |
| #9 Ah, the Guild of Buggy Whip Makers fights back... Either that, or this is a parody. I mean, talking about the potential of fraud and abuse from amateurs, as if we don't already see constant fraud and abuse from the "professionals"? How many fake massacre reports has the AJC printed? How many of Bilal Hussein's photos did they run? How much of Pallywood's product have they used? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-12-13 09:16 |
| #8 His bottom line is - "We do not trust the people". So, why has he chosen to live in a 'democracy' other than the usual benefits most parasites enjoy in living off a host? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-12-13 08:56 |
| #7 "But unlike those other professions, journalism — at least in the United States — has never adopted uniform self-regulating standards." They say this like it's a bad thing. As in "If journalism won't put its own regulation in place government will have to do it - and individuals won't qualify as journalists." I would have said the Supreme Court would call such a thing un-Constitutional, but that was before McCain-Feingold was upheld. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-12-13 08:31 |
| #6 But we have already seen the line between news and entertainment blur enough to destroy significant credibility. Significant? I don't think so. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-12-13 08:14 |
| #5 > this guy has balls big enough to come in a dumptruck I would "rather" Fools rush in where heroes fear to tread. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-12-13 08:09 |
| #4 Or a faked lack of famine in the USSR. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-12-13 08:07 |
| #3 "Having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It's just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere." Yeah. Or faked National Guard memos. Uh-huh. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-12-13 07:58 |
| #2 After the bullshit of the last 10 years, this guy has balls big enough to come in a dumptruck to suggest that citizen journalism is any less accurate or prone to abuse than the major media outlet stuff. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-12-13 06:44 |
| #1 > While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. You being sarcasitic aren't you! > The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend. Must control information flow to the serfs! It's the MSM that's been lieing, and people have been monitoring it. The best informend people do NOT trust the MSM news. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-12-13 06:25 |