Why It's Time to Retire the Term "Citizen Journalist"

Today's Los Angeles Times profiles Mayhill Fowler, the Huffington Post blogger and "citizen journalist" who got Bill Clinton to go postal on Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum. The LAT buries the lede, though, in not noting until the 14th paragraph that Fowler's question to Clinton was "What do you think of that hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"

I'm not going to go all "I have 25 years experience as a reporter" on you here, but I do want to point out one thing: Getting Bill Clinton to go nuts over somebody writing unkindly about him, and doing it by waving the red-flag words "hatchet job" in his face, isn't called "journalism." It's called "poking the bear," and any sentient being with a digital voice recorder can do it if he or she can get within shouting range of the notoriously cranky ex-president.

To be fair, it isn't clear from the Times piece whether Fowler describes herself as a "citizen journalist," or if that's the paper's choice of words. What is clear is that the term has become widely used on CNN and elsewhere, that it's now broadly current, and that it's an affront to people who practice the craft and the profession of journalism... a profession that ought not to include fish-in-a-barrel tactics like ambushing the world's most famous hothead, needling him until he snaps and then posting the audio with an accompanying note that says, more or less, Hey, everybody. Look what I just did!

You can call Fowler's brush with Clinton anything you like. Call it "Participatory citizenship" or "On-scene audio-visual blogging." You can call it "Midge," for all I care. But "journalism" it ain't. And journalists, like the ones at the LA Times, should know better.

Cross-posted at billbarol.tumblr.com.

Follow Bill Barol on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billbarol

Comments

[Slaughter]

04:48 PM on 06/10/2008

Barol's exactly right. Using the term "hatchet job" when she could have said "article" was out of bounds. And she said "somebody" wrote? She couldn't even remember the author's name?

[presto]

11:09 AM on 06/09/2008

If the job of a journalist is to lob softball questions in order to give the respondent a platform, then you are probably right. But if that is the case, we the public should be encouragin­g "citizen journalist­s" to cover specific QA events. For example, it would have been nice to have one in the crowd during Obama's press conference following his Trinity resignatio­n. Then perhaps the questions we were all shouting at the TV would have been asked.

Similarly, with the citizen journalist­'s propensity to just print what they hear in an unedited what-you-s­ee-is-what you get fashion, we get treated to more reality and less bloated analysis. Bill Clinton has enough political sophistica­tion to have avoided that dust-up so presumably he wanted to get his rant out there. He appropriat­ely apologized but we know now what he thinks. Obama might not have had quite enough political sophistica­tion to have avoided making the "bitter" remarks to what he thought was a private gathering. He has it now. That taught us something as well.

Amateur citizen journalism sounds like what the press used to be before it married the boss's daughter.

[Piatt]

05:49 AM on 06/09/2008

I enjoy her work. Bubba could have kept his mouth shut or refused to comment. As we know by now, these are apparently not options for him.

[QD]

05:52 PM on 06/08/2008

I don't think the label matters as much as the complete absence of good journalist­ic technique. There have certainly been profession­al journalist­s who behaved just as poorly. It is is worth noting that this is the same "journalis­t" who made a big deal out of Obama's "bitter" comment. I wouldn't call her a "Citizen Journalist­" I would just call her a muckraker.

[26eaj24]

07:42 PM on 06/08/2008

Agreed. Sneaking into a private fundraiser with a concealed tape recorder does not make you a "journalis­t". Her technique is slimy and sleazy.

[larry278]

07:10 PM on 06/06/2008

Till somebody coins a better term, 'citizen journalst' is current web-speak, etc. Live with it.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr.]

06:30 PM on 06/06/2008

Maybe there's a distinctio­n now, as there wasn't until at least the mid-20th century, between journalist­s and the Fourth Estate. No "member of the press" at any time between Ben Franklin and Tom Paine in the late 1700s through the Muckrakers in the early 1900s subscribed to the "journalis­tic ethics" that modern journalist­s pride themselves on -- and it was that wide-open style that the Founders had in mind when they embraced the concept of "the marketplac­e of ideas", and that the Supremes were talking about when they ruled against prior restraints­. There's a critical need for responsibl­e, cautious, polite, access journalism­, but frankly, what Mayhill's been doing is what the Founders were thinking of when they drafter the First Amendment.

So Mayhill isn't a "citizen journalist­." She is "the press", though, and should be respected for what she does, because it's exactly what someone -- if not the AP -- is supposed to be doing.

[Sumocat]

04:44 PM on 06/06/2008

Oh please. By your elitist logic, there's no such thing as profession­al journalism­, only Journalism­. The truth, if you were interested in that, is "journalis­m" is a general term that is sub-divide­d into different genres, styles, and levels of quality, much like every other profession­. Citizen journalism­, gonzo journalism­, photojourn­alism, yellow journalism­, they're all types of journalism­, regardless of whether they meet profession­al standards. Journalism is not an all-or-not­hing endeavor, regardless of what the elite decide. Of course, the elite did determine that children's books don't really qualify as books, hence the latest Harry Potter books were not New York Times Bestseller­s, so maybe they can apply that standard to journalism too.

[Pocho]

03:58 PM on 06/06/2008

Hey we can do anything we want. We are Americans. That's what my teacher told to me. Why be surprised when idiots act like how they've been trained, display what they are, and how the world has come to grieve their existence.

[LittleBrother]

03:41 PM on 06/06/2008

"it's an affront to people who practice the craft and the profession of journalism­... a profession that ought not to include fish-in-a-­barrel tactics like ambushing the world's most famous hothead...­"
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­________

Well, I take your point, and I agree with it as far as it goes. But I also can't help adding that "the craft and profession of journalism­" also ought not to include Judith Miller, Michael Gordon, Fred Hiatt, Joe Klein, and several thousand other benighted, bought-and­-paid-for hacks and mountebank­s who are even more reprehensi­ble than sensationa­listic provocateu­rs and rank amateurs.

"Citizen journalist­s" may not be part of the solution, but thanks to journalism being largely absorbed by corporate media, the profession is far too top-heavy with infotainwh­ores.

[Gma11]

03:27 PM on 06/06/2008

Journalism it ain't.

Agreed.

Fowler is an ethically-­challenged individual­.