Let me weigh in here with my thoughts since i am from the old school of journalism and an enthusiast for the new phase of journalism. For decades, those of us who were mainstream relied on information from citizens. So suppose a murder occurred in a particular area, it is harder than pulling teeth to get significant information from cops. We'd go out to the scene of talk to neighbours who'd provide the information or relatives who could provide that nugget of a quote that makes for a great lead. So citizens have been used by mainstream as sources of information. But there was also a great deal of filtration. We had the ethics, practice of journalism down pat. We knew what we could ethically reveal or write about. Credibility was the key. If my name is attached to a story, then it has to be something people can trust because I wrote it. And I always told younger reporters - remember, someone out there who will read your story known more about it than you do. So get your facts right.
Now, what is real citizen journalism. Some of it here qualifies and much does not.
We have had remarkable videos done by citizens who post those videos on YouTube or elsewhere and that to me is a fantastic experience because that epitomizes citizen journalism.
What I am against, and I find that repeatedly on citizen journalism channels is plagiarism and significant copyright infringements that may come back to haunt some of these citizen journos who take multiple or even single sources of reporting down by other media and claim it as their own. Regardless of how much linking and credit you give the creators, there are still issues about how much you can borrow.
This violates a fundamental ethical principle and violates the laws of copyright.
Much of citizen journalism - a high percentage uses this approach. Borrow from CNN, AP, New York Times, combine it, two or three paras at a time and that is your story.
It would have as easy for the reporter to look at the sources used and track down those sources - many times it is as simple as grabbing a press release, doing an interview or two - and that makes the story your own production.
In my opinion, that borrowing and lifting of original reporting is not acceptable - and yet it forms the bulk of citizen journalism. The proper thing to do is to create your own story, using press releases, interviews etc to create journalism that matches the criteria of mainstream.
My second beef is that citizen journalism channels become platforms for people who are completely ignorant about facts yet writing opinion pieces without the least amount of research - and often, the fact on which these opinions are based, the platform, is a house of cards. These need policing.
No serious student of journalism or life-long practitioner is going to look at these and not pick major holes - and I've seen that here.
Now in relation to the tweeting of a photo - in my opinion - falls within the realm of proper citizen journalism.
So what needs to happen, considering that a citizen journalism channel will not have the manpower to edit and police the number of incoming stories.
1) Set mandatory guidelines for opinion writers - insist on someone having some expertise in a field to write a properly informed analysis.
2) Cut down heavily on aggregated stories from multiple legit news stories.
3) Remember, we are not breaking stories if we are using other media who have already told the story.
4) Refrain from senseless attacks on faith, race - because media can fan social conflict by doing that. Sure there are consumers for that, but responsibility requires proper analysis with a clear mind.
5) Encourage primary reporting, discourage cutting and pasting.
Ultimately, the credibility of citizen journalism will decide the future of this form of journalism - is it credible, is it factual, is the story backed up.
I saw lead on a DJ article recently. The lead was deliberately constructed to create an air of mystery over the particular story, and yet the facts that destroyed that mystery were included in the mid section of that story.
If I were an editor, I would call up that reporter and say: Gimme a break, your own story has been destroyed by your own facts.
So it is about credibility, credibility and credibility.
Let's build it up.
Email this blog
