Essentially, anyone with a notebook and access to the internet can be a citizen journalist. Add a digital voice recorder and a digital camera and you are even closer to the real deal. Now, with a video camera, a laptop and a tri-pod, the only thing separating you, the citizen and a "professional journalist" is a degree.
This is a scary thought for someone going into journalism, I think. Why spend $40,000 and four (or five) years in college getting a degree in journalism if the average Joe down the street can do the same thing?
Well, a professional journalist is just that--professional. As a "professional" journalist, you are trained and expected to be unbiased and objective, whereas citizen journalists can insert more personal opinion into their blogs with no obligation to exercise restraint. Many readers, however, may not be able to tell the difference between professional reporting and citizen journalism. Even when reading articles from "professional" journalists, however, it is important to always remain skeptical, to do your own research and to always utilize multiple news sources.
Opening up articles to public comment in the Web edition is becoming common practice at many newspapers. The Mankato Free Press offers a public forum where readers can start topics and comment on the articles or on other events in the community. The online edition of the MSU Reporter also has this feature and it is increasing in popularity.
I have noticed though, that the only people who ever bother to comment on these articles are the naysayers and the 3x7r3m3j4ck455's of the world. These people often don't know all the facts or the research involved in the article and are prone to run their mouth on anything they feel the need to throw their two cents in.
I think this is where a newsroom transparency blog could easily come into play, explaining the journalistic process used when researching the article and talking to sources, as well as the difficulties that may arise in any story; a source not returning your calls, missing or misleading information, anything.
I think that stand-alone citizen journalism websites and wiki journalism sound a little bit risky, but that a hybrid, pro + citizen journalist website and integrating the two methods under one roof could be a very feasible and useful option.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I like how you pointed out that professional journalists are trained to be professional and unbiased. As you pointed out at the end of your response; Wikinews would probably be a risky source, because of the lack of professionalism.
I agree with your rhetoric, and I think the solution could very well be a "transparency" blog. The problem is, newspapers and other print media will be forced to put time, money and human resources into this option while dealing with the ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and increase sales. The question will become whether or not newspapers are willing to stretch their already overtaxed staff to working with citizen journalists, or forget the whole thing. While bloggers don't require pay (good), anyone can offer their two-cents (bad), bogging down a blog meant to stimulate intellectual conversation.
I think the main concern is what you start your comment out with: Why bother working (and paying) for a journalism degree when any "Joe" down the street can do the same? Will professional journalism go the way of the dinosaur?
Well I surely don't hope so..and I don't believe it will. As a matter of fact, as more sources of unfiltered (whatever that means) information begin flooding the Web, it will be vitally important for someone(s) to be able to be the "trailblazers" .. those who help us make sense of the confusing onslaught. This is what I see as the future role of "journalists."
In fact, could this be the most exciting time to be a journalist? Think of all of your delivery systems..print, audio, video, online, graphics, real-time delivery, animation..that can now be used to tell your stories. Exciting times, yes?
Thanks Rachel and Jason and B. Paige.
Post a Comment