Journalism Professor Says Citizen Journalists Should Be Regulated
from the ah,-the-old-elite-standards-again dept
There's just something about the idea a lack of "elite" gatekeepers that upsets some people. It's why you hear complaints about Wikipedia or blogs or home videos on YouTube. For some reason, there are a group of folks (often the former elitist gatekeepers) who feel that since not all of the content is great, useful or interesting, it all is problematic in some way or another. The latest to express this type of viewpoint is David Hazinski, a journalism professor and former NBC correspondent, claiming that "unfettered" citizen journalism is "too risky" and that it needs to be regulated (via Romenesko) by "official" media companies, handing out "certificates" to citizen journalists. Unfortunately, his basic premise seems to be incorrect. He states: "Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide." That's not quite true. While some supporters may claim that, in general the benefits of the idea that anyone can be a reporter isn't necessarily about reliable information, but about providing additional viewpoints and information to try to make sure that more of the story is out there for people to find. It's not necessarily about being better -- but just giving an outlet to people who can add more to the story. He's certainly right that it can be abused, but that's missing the point. Sure it can be abused. But so can the traditional press. What's more important is that such abuses can also be outed and brought to light, just like any other news story. Hazinski is right that professional journalists should be verifying the information provided by "citizen journalists" but that should be true of anyone they accept information from. Almost all of the complaints he lobs at these untrained journalists applies equally to the trained ones -- so it's hard to interpret this piece as anything but complaints from someone who doesn't like the riffraff encroaching on his turf.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: citizen journalists, journalists, newspapers, regulations, reporters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What he wants is a guild that has government granted control of a trade. Much like the Bar Association. He wants to make it illegal for people to practice the profession of journalism without government approval by proxy.
If this ever came true, the freedom of the press would be absolutely worthless as the government could then just revoke the press license of anyone that wanted to use one (They would instruct the guild to revoke it, and if they didn't, they would just revoke the guild's right to give out certificates and revoke all the ones they have given out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
up urs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your wish can be granted
This guy needs to move to China, where his opinion is welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your wish can be granted
Much of professional media is influenced by factors other than simply 'providing good and useful information.' Many professional stories are made simply to get a customer to purchase their product, without containing any really useful information; therefore limiting what useful information that they do give to us. Eh, there's a lot more to be said on this but at 2 in the morning my mind won't find it for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulate Professors
The primary requirement for a professor's license should be the ability to explain the meaning of the First Amendment. You know, that really confusing and fuzzy-language part where it starts out, "Congress shall make no law . . . "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulate Professors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the end, what matters is your track record over time. If the competition forces professional media to be more flexible and hit harder, so be it. I do think in the end accuracy and fairness will win out, despite the people who only want to read what feeds their own beliefs, whether the journalist is paid well, poorly or not at all. (Yeah, I'm one of those evil professionals.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is something about people being free that really bugs them.
No wonder they hate America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not focus on doing a better job?
Of course, the suggestion that regulations should be imposed is absurd, so I think that can be discarded. I think it'd be better for "established" journalists to focus on why the "amateurs" are rapidly gaining an audience and threatening the status quo.
In my view, the single biggest reason is that journalists, at least here in the US, have failed miserably to do what they should be doing: bring a skeptical eye to the important issues of the day. What they've done instead is to pander to those of low intelligence -- they've become gossip-mongers.
The most egregious examples of this are the 24-hour news channels (which, btw, excludes Fox -- it's not a news channel, it's a propaganda engine). Instead of focusing on important issues such as the erosion of civil liberties, the criminal conduct of the administration, the looming disaster of global warming, and so on...we are instead shown story after story about Britney, Paris, and other worthless "celebrities". We have vicious racist Lou Dobbs ranting about a border crisis that doesn't exist. We have Nancy Grace going on about whatever the latest murder or disappearance is -- these stories are NOT national news. We have car chases, we have imbeciles like Glenn Beck, we have shouting (not talking) heads in a farcial parody of serious debate, we have "scandal" stories that are childish nonsense, we have inexcusably rude pigs like Chris Matthews, and so on.
Journalists should be ashamed and embarrassed by this. At a time when their country needs them to focus on serious, critical issues they're obsessed with trivia. (And gimmicky backgrounds, crawling text, and other visual garbage that makes news broadcasts look like a video game.)
And I don't mean to overlook newspapers, which are headed this same direction. Only a few (the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the San Francisco Examiner come to mind offhand) have shown some of the tenacity required to thoroughly investigate the most important stories of the day. And even they have had serious lapses, e.g., their failures to figure out that the run-up to the amazingly stupid invasion of Iraq was based on lies -- against, something that everyone of even middling intelligence figured out well in advance.
The bottom line is that if "professional" journalists feel threatened, it's a problem of their own making. Their laziness, their stupidity, their lack of courage is rendering them rapidly useless. If they want to turn it around -- and I hope they do -- then they will need to adopt as role models Woodward/Bernstein, two of the heroes of their profession. Or Edward R. Murrow, the man who faced down the tyrants of his time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not focus on doing a better job?
If anyone needs to be regulated it's the professional journalist (notice I said "If." Personally I believe that constitutional freedom of the press needs to remain strictly "hands off" as far as the government is concerned.) With their livelihood and career advancement tied to the selling of stories there is significant temptation to sensationalize a story, stretch the truth and even to outright purposefully lie and steal from other writers. Consider the following:
Stephen Glass - was an American reporter for The New Republic who was fired for fabricating articles, quotes, sources and events.
Jayson Blair - a former New York Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories. By 2000, his editors were rebuking Blair for the high error rate in his articles and his sloppy work habits.
Janet Cooke - was an American journalist who became infamous when she won a Pulitzer Prize for a fabricated story that she wrote for The Washington Post. After the fabrication was discovered and admited Cooke resigned and returned the prize. She appeared on the Phil Donahue show in January 1982, and said that the high-pressure environment of the Washington Post had corrupted her judgment.
While these are more famous incidents of jounalistic fraud, I suspect that these are only the tip of the iceberg and that many others continue undiscovered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The media is filled with misinformation and opinion. The media, the entire spectrum from TV, radio, papers, the web, are all subject to scrutiny. You read, you interpret, you make judgments about the validity of the information. And, in the end you believe what you want. The real problem is that we are not teaching people to be critical of what they read or see.... to be able to separate fact from opinion and belief.
And, it goes without stating--we already have a document that I suggest Mr. Hazinski read... the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All hail the hypnotoad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citizen Journalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue, though, is that journalists adhere to very strict standards of professional ethics (see the Society of Professional Journalists), which means accuracy, objectivity, a commitment to informing the public, and not unjustly causing harm. Most so-called "citizen journalists" do not consistently follow these standards and few are even aware of the laws and ethics that govern the profession.
This is not to say that non-journalists shouldn't be contributing to the public dialogue on important issues, but rather that a clear line needs to be drawn between journalism and citizen commentary. If people want to be journalists, then they should be. But you can't wear both hats at the same time and be credible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you Jamie
But honestly, some guy with a camera phone has the same standards and integrity as someone who's made his life reporting the news and risks the credibility (and therefore the circulation) of his publication? Joe Schmoe from Blow checks his facts as carefully as the New York Times -- or checks his facts at all?
Not to mention things that may motivate a citizen journalist that just don't enter into the equation with a professional: "Dude, wouldn't it be cool if people believe this?" Or "I hate that guy, I'm gonna doctor this image."
Spare me your conspiracy theories and mile-wide paintbrushes. And keep in mind that 98% of journalists are working stiffs making far less than $100,000, not millionaire Dan Rather types. So-called citizen journalism is a very American phenomenon and can be a very good thing. But it isn't better than, nor does it replace, the working press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you Jamie
But honestly, some guy with a camera phone has the same standards and integrity as someone who's made his life reporting the news and risks the credibility (and therefore the circulation) of his publication? Joe Schmoe from Blow checks his facts as carefully as the New York Times -- or checks his facts at all?
Not to mention things that may motivate a citizen journalist that just don't enter into the equation with a professional: "Dude, wouldn't it be cool if people believe this?" Or "I hate that guy, I'm gonna doctor this image."
Spare me your conspiracy theories and mile-wide paintbrushes. And keep in mind that 98% of journalists are working stiffs making far less than $100,000, not millionaire Dan Rather types. So-called citizen journalism is a very American phenomenon and can be a very good thing. But it isn't better than, nor does it replace, the working press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank you Jamie
To wit...
So-called citizen journalism is a very American phenomenon and can be a very good thing. But it isn't better than, nor does it replace, the working press.
Please tell me where in the post did Mike indicate that "citizen journalism" is better or should replace the working press? In fact, he specifically states that citizen journalism is "not necessarily about being better", but about adding additional viewpoints. So, you either replied to the wrong article or read the write article, but got the exact opposite message it actually conveyed. Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U.S. Constitution...ever heard of it?
I am sure that the members of the Society of Professional Journalists are all very nice people, and I am sure that if you publish something and you tell your audience that you are a member of the Society, that your opinions may be given greater weight by the general public. Unfortunately, the professional society mindset usually gives way to the idea of "if it can be done this way, and many people agree that it should be done this way, then this is the only way to go." For many reasons, this idea was rejected by the Framers of the Constitution.
The First Amendment prohibits the U.S. Government from infringing upon an individual's free exercise of speech. This is extended to religion, press, and various other forms of self-expression. The Fourteenth Amendment extends these rights to include protection from individual state power.
In short, if you wanted to institute the certification requirement, it would be defeated in the courts. Sure, you may not be able to get a job, and you may be despised for being a non-certified citizen journalist, but no-one could prohibit you from writing whatever inane junk you wish to publish. Besides, if your ideas are nutty enough, who is going to give them credit?
If you publish flat out lies, you can be sued for libel.
I understand the desire for professional responsibility and courtesy, but from the citizen side of things, journalists have quite a bit of explaining to do. Why didn't journalists ask the tough questions about WMD's before the war? Why are we still waiting for someone in the Administration to spill the beans about who was responsible for the outing of Valerie Plame? What lies are the Administration telling us even now? Finally, why is U.S. mainstream news so very different, in terms of content and depth, from European news?
If journalists merely turn the lens upon their own institution, and begin to examine the corporate and state structures responsible for constructing the news, you may begin to understand why citizens trust other citizens, and have less respect for professionals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consistency
Let's let Rupert Murdoch and the Clearwire CEO be the only two guys that can issue these journalist licenses.
It makes sense, because I find having too many divergent opinions in the press tiring and difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Professional Journalists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very nice, Jamie -- *in theory*
I concur with the idea that journalists should adhere to high standards of accuracy, neutrality (except when editorializing), etc. I understand why those things are valuable, and why it's sometimes necessary for people to put their careers on the line for them.
Now let's talk about reality...and reality is that television news is (mostly) about scoring ratings and thereby selling commercial time. Which is why lots of coverage of Anna Nicole is "good" and lots of coverage of complex issues (like, say, the internal political situation in Pakistan) is "bad". Too hard to explain. No boob shots. Too many difficult questions to which there may not be answers that reduce nicely to sound bites.
And lets talk about newspapers -- why isn't the alleged gang-rape, kidnapping, etc. of an American citizen by other American citizens (in Iraq) on the front page of every newspaper in the country? Where is the tenacious investigation into FISA violations? Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I forgot -- better to cover the latest sex scandal, that'll sell more papers. Or maybe the lurid Peterson story, never mind that while it's a family tragedy, it's obviously not national news. Not even close.
If professional journalists are unhappy that others are encroaching on their profession, then let them DO THEIR JOBS, which, for the most part, they are miserably failing to do. Let them prove -- at 11 pm every night and on the nation's doorsteps every morning -- that they have some grasp of what's news and what's gossip, rumor, and fluff.
And most of all, let's see them have the courage to prove that they're not lapdogs of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
citizen journalism debate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.grady.uga.edu/resources.php?page=facultyandstaff_profiles.inc.php%7Cfac_ID=17
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was a journalism student back when ethics, objectivity, and a free press were the hallmarks of good journalism. Now the mainstream media seem to be sold out either to a political bias or to ratings in the form of tabloid-style stories. The media are to blame for the first, and we as consumers the other.
Maybe it's an idealized memory of my youth, but I seem to remember the days when journalists would ask hard-hitting questions on both sides of the political fence. Now we have the 'hard hitting' interviews like Katie and Hillary a few weeks ago...pitiful. I'll gladly take more citizen journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Experience
He owns Intelligent Media Consultants, LLC, a company responsible for training the staffs and helping to launch eight television networks around the world, mostly on the sub-continent. These include Aaj Tak and CNN-IBN in India and GEO TV in Pakistan. He has also consulted for broadcasters and publishers such as the Voice of America, Gramedia in Indonesia, and Alsumaria in Beirut and Baghdad. While on the faculty, Hazinski spent two years as writer, co-host and technology advisor of the internationally syndicated World Business Review with Caspar Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan. Before coming to UGA, Hazinski served six years as an international correspondent for NBC News, covering the U.S., Europe, and Central America -- and ten years before that as a TV reporter with stations in Charlotte and Pittsburgh.
This guy sounds like a flat out America-Hating traitor to me. I was thinking he had crainial rectumitis, but after seeing his picture, it looks a lot more like penal rectumitis has bruised his brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice try...
GAME OVER, professor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
citizen journalists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't seriously think that's really the case do you? lol
Accuracy - that's laughable - at best. (CBS documents anyone?)
Objectivity - ummm... lol, no need to comment do I? Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer, Wolf Blitzer, Dan Rather.. are they all 'objective'? LOL!!!
Commitment to ratings, it has NOTHING to do with informing anyway - they even say that openly.
Unjustly causing Harm.. The 'media' goes OUT OF IT'S WAY to find dirt on people and tragic news. How many people's lives have been crushed when the media starts assuming guilt before the court system? Just for starters...
I mean - seriously, politicians have resigned just because of 'media sensation' before any guilt has ever been determined.
The current 'media' and 'journalists' are so horrible there's a DEMAND for different news - why else is blogging and such becoming so very popular?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
impossible proposal
I think this job can and should be done by the readers on their own. I mean they could read the stuff or leave it alone, if they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Writers Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who needs citizen journalists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in re: Journalism Professor Says Citizen Journali
Academics, as a group, governments in particular, and traditional media outlets in general, favor suppression, regulation and control. They are, in short, socialists and communists. Citizen journalists create a more libertarian environment, and may well be pushing more truth into the light than was the case for the traditional media outlets. Of course, many of the citizen-journalists will be characterized by their critics and detractors as anarchists.
It seems Journalism professors and media moguls have somehow missed the point that journalism holds one simple, altruistic ideal: to report the news, rather than create it.
Mike Masnick's article got it EXACTLY RIGHT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very true indeed. After all - when they are paid - there's a motive to 'go too far'. Those who aren't paid... well.. no real motive other than a possible agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did we read the same op-ed piece??
What Hazinski's actually says, versus the writeup above and the headline some copy-editor stuck on the piece, is that news organizations should fact-check "citizen-contributed information" before adding it to their own stories. BFD!
He also calls for J-schools to give ethics training and certificates, but there's nothing in the piece that says those certificates should be required before posting on the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them eat cake, just don't let them write.
King George
[ link to this | view in chronology ]