Citizen Journalism: Can We Trust it?

"'Citizen Journalist' Broke Obama Story," reads the headline in the Los Angeles Times. The 'citizen' is HuffPo blogger, Mayhill Fowler. The story is the exclusive recording and article about Obama's 'bitter' bite from his speech about small towns - which became as ubiquitous on TV screens as "Law and Order."

Citizen journalism is as old as our democracy. Early American news purveyors were citizens with a printing press in their basements putting out screeds about bad King George. Helped create a nation. Over a couple of centuries, these citizens eventually morphed into a small handful of media companies who currently own over 80% of all news outlets. The explosion of the Internet has re-created citizen journalism and, this time, not everyone is chirping with delight about it - especially journalists.

Basically, today's citizen journalism is an extension of the news business where the audience becomes the reporter, says David Hazinski, former NBC correspondent and professor of journalism at the University of Georgia. The premise is that regular people - that would be us - collect information and pictures with cell phones, video cameras and put it out on a website - that would be the HuffPo and others. The story, that doesn't cost the website anything to get, then gets picked up, re-packaged and shot-gunned all over the mainstream media - that would be the for-profit news organizations. Sweet.

The people who promote this process hail it as the power of citizen involvement. Mainstream media commits censorship by omission, goes the thinking. Voices of the poor, the disenfranchised and minorities often go unheard and citizen participation is an opportunity to get them heard, says Leonard Witt, one of the main architects of citizen journalisms' structure.

Citizen reporters provide independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media doesn't provide, goes the argument. Independent? Perhaps. Accurate and reliable? Can't be sure, say concerned professionals. Citizen journalism really isn't journalism, says Prof. Hazinski. It's gossip. Where's the training, experience, standards and skills essential to gather and report news? It opens up the news flow to the strong possibility of fraud and abuse, he says.

This is what makes media mavens very nervous. If a reporter goes off the reservation, like the New York Times' Judith Miller, editors have standards and safeguards to call her to task. However, with a story generated by Everyman, where's the protection, the accountability? Where are the professionals to validate or vet the story? A significant percentage of the public believes Barack Obama is a Muslim and John Mcain sired an African-American baby - both the result of some citizen putting it out on the Internet as a legit story. That's scary.

Readers who shop for books on Amazon understand the pitfalls of citizen participation. When looking at reviews that accompany every title, critical thinkers wonder who's the citizen writing this review? Is this a thoughtful opinion from a reader, or from a friend, or foe, of the author trying to influence sales?

The question around this re-emerging trend might be, who benefits from citizen journalism? For starters, for-profit news organizations potentially do. As they cut costs and chop off hordes of staff, they might increase their information sources - at no cost. The so-called reporter benefits by the simple act of creating a story and seeing it published - somewhere. Ego boost. What about the news consuming public at-large? There are benefits. Government or corporate whistle blowers have unlimited outlets for their horror stories - stories that might not see the light of day without the Internet. More citizens keeping an eye on more things is like open-source news gathering - another possible benefit.

But if citizen journalism is a product of our democracy, the answer may lay there. Democracy, pure democracy, is unworkable and does require parameters - which is why the Founding Fathers created representative democracy. We citizens chose other qualified citizens to examine, set standards, represent and execute our views and interests in the governing process. It's a vetting process - the same vetting process that all reporters have to go through with editors. That means it's necessary to have qualified people representing our interests when it comes to gathering and delivering news - and that would be our current media companies, the ones who own over 80% of all news outlets.

Comments

[charley0008]

I agree with the writer but would go further in examining the potential impact & problems associated with citizen journalism. I speak specifically to the credibility issue that 'citizen journalism' may present to the important contribution that online journalism is finally beginning to provide. As a retired print journalist, editor and publisher who wrestled with all the issues, I understand the appeal both economically and in terms of reach. I even think there is a place for them, but not in hard news coverage.
Using citizen journalist to cover hard news is a slippery slope for those developing alternative voices beginning to coalesce on the internet above the chaotic fringe.
It was not "journalists" who failed the American people, it was specifically mainstream media journalism. Credible journalists & writers from across this country spoke eloquently to the issues but could not break the access barriers to be heard.
As computer reliance grows, internet sites are starting to provide strong alternative voices. But is it strong enough yet to break the artificial partisan divide that has re-framed the debate in main stream media? Not quite yet, is my view.
Restoring the 'middle ground' on hard news issues is critical to restoring diversity. It requires superior skill & intelligent design. It is no place for amateurs.
Missed in the debate over the Fowler piece was the issue of "credibility" & "vetting" being raised, drowned out by the 'for or against' Obama voices.
I would be taking that issue to heart.

[Dan Stewart]

The author says:

"Accurate and reliable? Can't be sure, say concerned professionals. Citizen journalism really isn't journalism, says Prof. Hazinski. It's gossip. Where's the training, experience, standards and skills essential to gather and report news? It opens up the news flow to the strong possibility of fraud and abuse, he says. "

In light of events in media reporting over the last several years, does the author see the irony in his statement? What part of the statement could not legitimately be applied to today's mainstream media?

[dadw5boys]

TRUST??????

WMD'S!!!!!!!!!!!

WMD'S!!!!!!!!!!

TAX CUTS WORK!!!!!!!!!

IMBEDDED REPORTERS ALLOWED TO REPORT ONLY APPROVED STORIES!!!!!!!!!

TRUST????

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SWilkin676]

HuffPost's Pick

I think there is protection from fraud in the citizen journalist's name and reputation. Stories which are not attributed to someone we know should be taken with a very liberal grain of salt. Readership requires reputation. You can develop a following through good reporting. And there is more access to citizen journalists than the traditional media so people who are close to an issue can report facts that would not otherwise be known.

There is legal accountability when the writers name is known. Outright lies could be subject to libel prosecution. And the person smeared has an outlet that allows them to tell their side of the story without the mis-information or slanting that reporters do. And if someone is consistently challenged about their veracity, they will eventually lose their reputation and no one will read what they've written. There is accountability in sites such as Huffington Post which would get a real bad reputation if they published false information.

The news media needs a check and balance, they have too much power. How audacious were some of the questions asked at the ABC debate? - Will you publicly promise to do X, Y, or Z? Gosh gee, I wish we could ask the candidates to make public promises for OUR chosen policies. I almost got a sense that they were particularly worried about their own tax bill.

It isn't good that the people in power can hide their crimes and lies from the public via controlling the press.

[FreedomsRoad]

This notion of "reputation" isn't a very well-supported view for how things work on the internet -- look at this blog posts references to Obama's supposed Muslim background and McCain's alleged mixed race love child. The real issue is corporate consolidation of the media and fewer editors, fact checkers and copy editors on the job supporting and challenging the reporting of the facts. Citizen journalism is generally op-ed with a observational facts thrown in to support it. Mayhill's biased "reporting" of Obama's comments, coming days after the event itself, suggests that she spent time parsing the report and building up an opinion and emotional response to what she'd heard days previously. That's the danger of citizen "journalism" masquerading as reporting.

That's not to say there aren't excellent citizens out their reporting facts and functioning as journalists, however, the act of reporting has certainly evolved since the First Amendment was promulgated and the readers inherently believe that the words "reporting" and "Journalist" are connected to a system of standards and fact-checking rigor that in this case don't exist.

[LivingStardust]

Yeah, professional journalists have done such a great job in exposing the crimes of the Neocons. 99% of media is spun bullshit not worthy being called journalism. Many in the "professional world of journalism" have just as much guilt and blame as Bush and Cheney for the crimes committed against American interests by those oil fascists.

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

Right.
So where were the "professionals" in the run up to the Iraq War? on the domestic spying issue? On the torture memos? On Plame-gate?

They were ALL rubberstamping Mr. Bush's press releases.

Perhaps Mr "Professional" Tom "Professional" Alderman, the "Professional" forgot that.

But I didn't.

[KarenKaren]

Here's my headline: "Professional" Journalism, Can We Trust It?

[mabs1]

I think that there is an inherent danger in citizen journalism that more bogus stories will be put out for the public to swallow. One would hope that before a 'traditional' reporter puts a story out there, he/she checks and vets the story for accuracy. One would hope. But the MSM has been wrong before and, most importantly, there have been attempts to use the media to misinform. The dangers with a few centers controlling the dissemination of information is that it is easy for them to get it wrong, for whatever reasons, or it is easy for someone else to manipulate them. And then, it take a long time for a correction mechanism to take place. It is hard to get them to publish a disclaimer or it is even hard for the consumers (that would be their audience) to talk back.

With citizen journalism there are more eyes watching and it is just as easy for someone with additional information to correct the original erroneous story. It's not just one journalist having to collect all the relevant information and release it to the public. It's a collective work of many people reading, commenting, adding, disambiguating and so on. The chances that a story will be set in stone with no revisions is really low, which means there is a decreased chance for facts to be twisted or excluded. This system will produce more errors but it has a more flexible correction mechanism, in my opinion.

[LoRiseAntlers]

Last night's debate really invalidates the premise that corporate media is any better at the endeavor than any Joe or Jane off the street,the fact that Fox News spends every single minute of every single day distorting,spinning and outright lying has been more than enough to push millions into looking for sources other than the supposed professionals,and 10 minutes of Wolf Blitzer is enough to make anybody with any kind of intelligence to realize that his fellow citizen can't be any worse.

And Ms.Fowler's supposed "citizen journalism" smacks more of Clintonianhit tactics than it does of an honest attempt at journalism.

[Powderhound522]

I'm sick of hearing about "hit tactics".

She was invited to a private fundraiser by the campaign because they knew her as a supporter of their cause.

She has donated nearly the maximum amount to the Obama campaign.

Her past reporting has been a mixture of positive and negative, but mostly it has been in support of her chosen candidate - Barack Obama.

Of course, you would be aware of all this had you actually bothered to read the piece which generated this "controversy". Far from being a hit piece, it was a thoughtful article which contextualized the remarks, and agreed with their content, but took issue with their wording.

THAT is the story which has been missed - a piece of citizen journalism which, rather than sensationalizing and decontextualizing, carefully discussed the setting and the lead-in before mentioning the matter at hand. It was a far more responsible report than what would have come from a traditional news outlet (that report would have been more along the lines of the blaring headlines later seen: "OBAMA'S "ELITIST" COMMENTS" with bolded subheading "Small-town voters "bitter", "cling to their religion".

You see, when reporting is done without a profit motive, the impetus towards sensationalism and attention-grabbing headlines is removed (or at least diminished). With that motive removed, we see pieces that tend away from the facile, and instead find that careful analysis and responsibility take the day - because those lead to a better reputation, a citizen-journalist's stock-in-trade.

[FreedomsRoad]

Mayhill is suspect. Given her economic situation, I doubt that the $2300 donation is a true sense of her loyalties, especially given that she also donated $250 to Thompson out of a sense of loyalty to her place of birth -- hardly a sign that economic investments are tied to political support or ideological agreement in her case.

Mayhill's pieces have increasingly flirted with sensationalism -- she's a frustrated writer who wants the attention who was (mis)lead by an over-eager editor to generate site hits. Foul. And there is definitely a profit motive for anyone blogging in the context she's doing it in -- when you see the announcement of her first book deal, perhaps you'll rethink what she's been up to with this blogging strategy.

[ajax2]

Mayhill Fowler may be a citizen, but she is certainly not a journalist. She writes opinion pieces, heavily slanted, and peppered with personal attacks. Her pieces may be called reportage at Fox Inc but they shouldn't be called reporting anywhere else. She appears to have an agenda, but won't defend it openly, so she hides behind a false front. Those individuals professing this deviousness as journalism of the future are much more frightening than Mayhill.

[MPeter]

Yes, I will take it over CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS or MSNBC anyday. See what Jed has done that no punk at any of these network could, yet they are paid thousands of dollars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U

[mommadona]

"However, with a story generated by Everyman, where's the protection, the accountability?

Where are the professionals to validate or vet the story?"

Yeah...where ARE you guys...we SURE would like some non-corporate sponsored news not-inna-can.

Ah....but the money is where the big boys play - the facts and story be damned. That bottom line is the bottom.

"rrrrosssebud......."

[apoyo]

Watch only PBS or listen to NPR. They are accountable to you because they are financed by you.