Citizen journalism vs. professional journalism I
Citizen journalism, a concept at which mainstream news organizations used to turn up their nose, has been documented and praised enough that they are now paying attention. But do professional journalists and news organizations really have anything to be worried about?
Professional amateurs
The popular vlog Rocketboom did an interview with XML guru Dave Winer in which he gave his take on journalism: "Amateur is not below professional. It's just another way of doing (media). The root of the word amateur is love, and someone who does something for love is an amateur. Someone who does something to pay the bills is a professional. The amateurs have [more integrity than] the professionals. If you're an amateur you have less conflict of interest and less reason not to tell your truth than if you have to pay the bills and please somebody else."
What Dave has to say may be true in theory, but in reality it doesn’t fly. Amateurs can’t really dedicate themselves to performing thorough journalism because the fact is they have to pay the bills doing their own profession. After that job is done, they can entertain themselves however they would like and many in recent years have taken up reading, writing and commenting in the blogosphere.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it is exactly this practice that is today hailed as “Citizen Journalism” which really has nothing at all to do with journalism.
Think quickly about the top political blogs on the Internet. They have massive followings, enough to allow their authors to support themselves and then some. But do they do any real journalism? No. They are just commentary on what’s in the Mainstream Media. Educated and insightful commentary, no doubt. Often better than MSM editorials. But just commentary.
Amy Gahran at Poynter picked up the Winer interview and had her own take: “I think this basic question -- what constitutes integrity in media? -- cuts straight to the heart of the discomfort that many traditional journalists experience when they consider the booming field of citizen journalism and grassroots media. We journalists generally prize integrity. Certain core values and practices of traditional (professional) journalism -- such as objectivity, accuracy, corroboration, avoiding conflicts of interest, transparency, editorial oversight, etc. -- exist in order to enhance our integrity and thus earn the audience's trust.” She later declares, “amateurs can learn to produce high-quality news content.”
Let’s dissect Gahran:
First of all, the “field of citizen journalism and grassroots media” is not “booming.” Who some would consider to be the father of citizen journalism, Dan Gillmor, is changing course after his first attempt as an independent citizen journalism because he did not receive the rate of participation for which he had hoped and he was not able to make it profitable (see “paying the bills”).
Backfence, the start-up citJ project which is taking over Gillmor’s blog has seen tepid results at best.
Even Wikipedia, which isn’t particularly citizen journalism but runs along the same lines, doesn’t produce the kind of dedication one might expect: the Economist (print edition) is the latest to point out that of Wikipedia's millions of users, there is a core of “a few hundred committed volunteers” editing entries.
Secondly, amateurs could definitely “learn to produce high-quality news content,” as Gahran insists. But what’s the point of investing all of that time and money unless they wanted to become actual journalists from which they could draw the paycheck to pay the bills?
And of course the principles of journalism that she lists have little to nothing to do with amateur citizen journalists (bloggers):
- Objectivity: blogs are inherently biased
- Accuracy: bloggers don’t really report so what’s there to be accurate about?
- Corroboration: blogging and commenting are one-man shows…
- Avoid conflicts of interest: …one-man shows with a personal motive.
- Transparency: Bloggers are pretty good at this by linking to background material, but some still post and comment anonymously.
- Editorial oversight: against the whole concept of a blog
So it looks like not only do amateurs have a long way to go to do real journalism, but that if they are ever to do real journalism, they’ll no longer be amateurs. Professionals have nothing to worry about.
But what about professionals using these amateur technologies? Our next posting shines some light...
Source: Poynter, The Economist (April 22 print edition, special survey on new media)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Citizen journalism vs. professional journalism I.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5827
Amy Gahran at Poynter picked up the Winer interview and had her own take: “I think this basic question -- what constitutes integrity in media? -- cuts straight to the heart of the discomfort that many traditional journalists experience when they consider the booming field of citizen journalism and grassroots media.
This is one of the biggest jokes I've read in a long time. Integrity in media and so-called 'professionals' is an oxymoron. The media priesthood has become the most biased, dishonest group of paid people (not professionals) that exists on the planet.
Hi, John
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'll comment more in depth when I have time (am running out for the evening shortly). But very quickly:
- I think you're conflating the concepts of weblogs and citizen journalism
- Blogs are not "inherently biased"
- Citizen journalism and grassroots media happens in plenty of places besides Bayosphere and Backfence.
More later...
- Amy Gahran
Are you guys serious! So because an 'amateur' doesn't get paid but does it for 'love' (stretching the original meaning to fit a new situation) somehow downgrades the writing?
So what of the garbage that daily passes for 'professional journalism', from the gossip to the lies, because the writer is paid makes it legit?
Haven't we forgotten something here? The original meaning of journalist was someone who kept a journal of events and indeed, the original 'news' papers were largely produced by the political activists' of the times, cf. Thom Paine et al.
So where does this leave us? I contend that the argument about 'amateur' versus 'professional' is an invention designed to sidetrack the debate (such as it is) about the role of the professional media as a vehicle of the dominant economic and political classes, whose primary role is to validate the status quo.
Aren't journalists just paid to write stuff that keeps the advertisers happy, else where's the profit?
And yes, the 'Bloggers' come in all shapes and sizes from excellent writing (backed up with research skills most so-called professional journalists would give their eye teeth for, that is their editors allowed them), all the way to the kind of garbage most corporate journalism is composed of.
As ever, it's down to the critical abilities of the reader to separate the wheat from the chaff but given as the media has been reduced to an act of passive consumerism, it's up to the 'amateur' to restore the rightful place of debate about issues that concern us out here, in public, a lesson that the corporate press will never learn, it has after all, entirely different objectives.
William Bowles
'Aren't journalists just paid to write stuff that keeps the advertisers happy, else where's the profit?'
This would be great!!!! Would definitely save hours of writing researching editing etc only then to have it sent back to you, to rewrite, change the angle,change the focus etc. Then for another two rewrites and to then be told they don't actually need the piece anymore.
I cannot tell you, especially when you are a fresh faced would be journo how disheartening that is. Time after time. You know the phrase ‘there is only so much rejection one can take?’, well if you’re a journalist, there is no amount of rudeness, rejection and pure misery that you’ll go through to get your job (especially you’re first one).
I think a really common assumption is that journalists have an easy life. From having to sell your stories (the joys of freelance) to having to chase stories, only then to lose the gig completely, journalism isn't even a career. Its a lifestyle, you've got to fight for every job and every story. You work ridiculous hours and it doesn’t even stop when you get home. Even when you're an editor, you have to fight to keep your job. One bad issue and its potentially over. Everything relies on you being 100% on top of your game and it does become you’re life.
Its really hurts when people keep devaluing what you do. Firstly because chances are, if you’re a journalist, you’re not in it for the money, its for the love of it and the thrill of print. Secondly the majority of us have had to come out with first class BA’s, then have to get on to really highly regarded MA’s plus have immaculate and extensive portfolios to even get a look in. The competetion is fierce.
Its really easy to assume that journalists just appear from nowhere, but like other professions, we've had to go through a lot where we all are. Doctors, nurses and lawyers etc don't just appear as if from nowhere and its the same for journalists.