Earlier this month, Mayhill Fowler, a citizen journalist, had reported comments made by U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, describing rural, white voters as "bitter," to Huffington Post's blog "Off the Bus." Guardian America editor Michael Tomasky believes there is a need for blogging rules and questions the ethics of citizen journalism, while Jeff Jarvis of the blog Buzzmachine has similar beliefs as Robert Niles that "nothing is off-the-record anymore" and that citizen journalists are now necessary.

Jarvis: "Openness for all"
Jarvis begins by saying that rules are "corrupting" for journalism. Journalists should not engage in off-the-record talks and list unnamed sources because they should not help public officials hide anything from the public. Though some exclusives may be lost, there will be more stories with more openness and more reporting, "and politicians will learn that anything and everything they say and do can (and should) be reported," according to Jarvis. 

Furthermore, Fowler knew Obama's remarks "would be newsworthy," says Jarvis, and though she is an Obama supporter, she chose to let the public know about those remarks so that they could form their own opinions. Also, even if Fowler did not blog for the Huffington Post, she could have reported the story through YouTube or other platforms.

Essentially, journalism is evolving, says Jarvis, with coverage expanding from journalists, witnesses, readers, bloggers, etc.  "Journalism becomes less of a product and more of a process," he remarks.

Tomasky: "Call them "witnesses" and drop the whole conceit that they're journalists"
Though he embraces blogs, mostly for elevating debate, Tomasky cannot see the importance of knowing every single word public people say, since people misspeak and say things they don't really mean.

He argues that though "rules" may cause corruption and secrets, anonymity is sometimes the only way a source with important information will come forward, for example, the Pentagon Papers and intelligence assessments about Iraq before the war

Also, he concedes that most journalists would not be for "hiding" things from the public, but they would favor verifying something before it is published, which is "scarcely complicity in secret-keeping," but rather,  "just being responsible."

As for the Obama incident, Tomasky points out that Fowler got through the doors because she donated money to Obama's campaign, but "veteran journalists" were not allowed in the door. Had those journalists been allowed, they would not have kept those remarks secret.

Jarvis counters, "There's also a difference between verifying such a tip with reporting - which we'll all agree is necessary - and playing that tape-recording, which itself was the verification anyone needed. Obama's words and voice spoke for themselves."

He says that these "witnesses," or citizen journalists, now start the story with papers expanding on them and doing more in-depth research. Because veteran journalists may not be allowed through the door, they must rely on "witnessing," which "will still add up to journalism in the end."

Tomasky remarks that "it's a little sneaky and sleazy to be a citizen ... and then getting to be a journalist for the purposes of writing it up."

Source: Guardian.co.uk