What's in a degree? Does journalism by any other name smell as sweet?

So apparently this degree I’m spending four years of my life and thousands of dollars on doesn’t count for much these days, all you need to be a journalist is an internet connection!

This does sound a little cynical towards the movement known as citizen journalism, and I will clarify that I am not opposed to this movement per se; however I do have to wonder (as a potential future professional of the industry), how does citizen journalism really stack up against the traditional model? Is a higher standard of quality and accuracy inherent in the content produced by formally qualified journalists? Or is the gist of my (slightly modified) Shakespearian literary quote right - is the only difference between these two forms of journalism the names that they are labelled with?

Citizen journalism is an alternative method of news production and dissemination where everyday citizens have an “active role” in generating and publishing news content (Wikipedia 2008). Essentially it is ‘user-generated’ news and there are a number of platforms supporting the publication of these independent news reports, be they general content publication sites such as personal blogs or YouTube, or formal citizen news platforms such as OhmyNews, Ground Report or Current TV . This of course differs from main stream news reporting in that journalists have formal training and qualifications and also in the publication platforms available in that traditional journalists have access to mainstream print publications and television and radio broadcasters (although with the rise in the popularity of online news this second point is becoming less relevant).

The obvious benefit of grass-roots citizen journalism is the ability to counteract corporate bias and commercial agendas that can pervade mainstream media publications, and according to the origin of the citizen journalist movement, this is precisely its aim. Axel Bruns identifies the source of citizen journalism as an attempt to ensure fair and balanced coverage of the protests aimed at the 1999 World Trade Organisation meeting – an issue some “media activists” feared mainstream news broadcasters and publications would not report on (2008, 69). In this sense, citizen journalism acts as a watchdog for media organisations and I believe this to be a very good thing. However, I cannot believe that the thousands upon thousands of news blogs and videos posted 24-hours a day on various web sites by John and Jane Doe are necessarily a) contributing to the system of checks and balances controlling corporate agenda pushing, or b) offering any information or comments of genuine interest or value. May I be so bold as to suggest that some of these armchair (or is that computer chair?) experts just like to see their name hanging up there in cyberspace? Perhaps this can also be said of some professional journalists, but they usually did a bit more than buy a modem to make it a reality.

The main issues I have with unbridled enthusiasm for citizen journalism are two fold:

1. What happens to codes of conduct and journalistic integrity? Where do these principles fit in the world of citizen journalism, if at all, and how are they enforced? Sure there are user rating systems and sometimes even site moderators, but it just doesn’t seem to be same. There are certain industry standards that qualified journalists adhere to, if for no other reason than that their jobs and reputations depend on it. But there is little reason to believe that an anonymous blogger on a citizen news site will adhere to these same standards other than a faith in their own good intentions.

2. More doesn’t necessarily mean better. The argument goes that increasing the number of voices in the media environment in turn increases the number of alternative perspectives and thus creates a even and balanced view of any given news story (Bruns 2008, 72). I must confess a little cynicism at this point. Of course there is potential in this model for alternative perspectives, but should this goal of having access to hundreds of different perspectives on any one topic be pursued at the expense of say, accuracy and quality? Klein points out that in collaborative situations users tend to “congregate with others of similar view points” (in Mangelsdorf 2008, 11), so it seems that people don’t even want to access viewpoints alternative to their own.

I’m not saying that discussion of news items and expressing different voices and opinions in any environment, including online, is not valuable, in fact quite the opposite, people should care about the news and feel free to discuss it. My point here is why should this be classified as journalism instead of just blogging? With the exception of those citizen journalists who do actually source their own facts and stories, and those who actively combat real instances of mainstream media bias, perhaps the rest should just be left to the professionals.

References

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 69-100. New York: Peter Lang. https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd//KCB201/KCB201_BK_163501.pdf (accessed May 8, 2008).

Mangelsdorf, M. 2008. A New Way to Collaborate. MIT Sloan Review 49 (3): 11. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1458948541&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1210823677&clientId=14394 (accessed May 10, 2008).

Wikipedia. 2008. Citizen Journalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism (accessed May 8, 2008).