My mind tends to wander and mull over things when I walk and I’m trying to up my exercise for my mental and physical health so my mind’s been wandering a lot lately. On this wander, for no reason in particular, though perhaps percolated through from watching the first episode of The Newsroom (I won’t be a regular watcher though. We have this myth of the citizen journalist, the blogger, the brave new cutting edge of political, social and scientific commentary and news. Newspaper readership is plunging and news shows and channels are polarising politically and becoming more and more extreme and opinionated in chasing a smaller and smaller audience.
There’s a problem though. The citizen journalist isn’t a journalist. They’re not bound by ethics (little wonder then that journos are increasingly forgetting theirs). Many of them are just soapboxing their own opinions, spouting a particular dogma, chasing a particular demographic as though they were selling something rather than informing us. They are selling us something, what we want to hear. Fox News is probably the most egregious case of a politicised news channel, commercialising right wing politics and providing comforting mooing noises to the American right wing. They’re by no means the only ones to do so and one can find similar bias going the ‘other way’ if you look for it. I lean left so I’m not so sensitised to it, but I acknowledge that it’s there.
The irony is that this is absolutely not what we need from the mainstream media any more. If I want opinion I can read any of thousands of blogs. I can dip into my twitter feed or search on the hashtag of the item in question, like the #arabspring. I get ill informed emails and facebook messages from distant relatives and friends of friends all the time. I am drowning in opinion, conjecture and dogma the entire time I’m logged into the internet. These aren’t citizen journalists, they’re gossips.
Gossip is great, witnesses are great, people like Laurie Penny who go out there and become part of the news and report from the front lines are all well and good but they’re not giving us THE news. They’re giving us THEIR news. It’s the same with Fox etc in the US and to a lesser extent here in the UK, at least on television. We’ve been somewhat spoiled by the BBC which, other than its simpering towards the Royal Family gets criticised from all sides of the political spectrum which is generally a good indicator that they’re doing something right. Our printed news sources are as partisan and biased, if not more so, than the US though.
Market pressure, the commodification of information, has ruined television news on an international basis and it is creeping in to the UK now despite our public institutions. It’s making these big news companies do things that they’re simply not suited to. No television broadcast can hope to keep up with the internet when it comes to breaking stories. No television broadcast can tailor itself to fit someone’s views precisely. People stream their own opinion-based news from the blogs, RSS feeds, twitter subscriptions etc that they make for themselves.
Broadcast TV can’t compete with that and equally individualist internet journalism cannot hope to compete – still – with the prestige and weight that broadcast news does.
What broadcast news should be doing is not giving us more opinion, not trying to stay on top of breaking stories. What broadcast news with the money and resources that it still commands should be doing is offering us THE news, free from bias. Broadcast news should be doing the analysis, the depth, talking to the experts. ‘This is what happened, this is what educated and intelligent people are saying was involved’. Not blame games, just the pursuit of truth and accuracy with an integrity that makes it trustworthy.
Leave the opinion and shouting to the ‘citizen journalist’.
Well, I work as both a blogger, a fiction writer, and a journalist, but I keep my work separate. When I write non-fiction, I am extremely careful to be unbiased, unless of course I am writing a column or opinions article. But I use both the blog to support my non-fiction journalism and the journalism to steer the blog’s popularity.
derekberry / The most watched news channel on the SKY platform
was PRESS TV the IRANIAN channel its news a wide coverage that
never available on other channels in it’s reporting of fact not fiction.
The result its news reporting not having the blessing of ISRAEL or
a USA or a BRITISH Govt. PRESS TV / t’was removed from the sky
platform thus removed the only news channel that portraying truth.
Thus your seperation of fact & fantasy be an balanced judgement.
I’m sure you can trust a nation run by a censorious theocracy to give unbiased news.*
*Comment may contain sarcasm.
Greetings from the North of Ireland, comrade. I enjoyed your post but have a wee bone to pick with you.
You say, “Market pressure, the commodification of information, has ruined television news on an international basis and it is creeping in to the UK now despite our public institutions.” I agree with you on that for the most part and I totally share your scepticism about “citizens journalism” – but when you say “despite our public institutions”, I think you’re missing a crucial point.
Look at what is happening to our public sphere, to our public institutions, our public space! Look at the London Olympics – corporate festival rather than festival of sport ! What we are witnessing in Britain, Ireland, all over the world is the destruction of public spaces in which people can speak, assume rights and responsibilities, protest, participate, debate, and think things out.
When the financial crash happened in 2007/08, we thought it was the end of neoliberalism, of corporate power over every aspect of our lives. But it turns out that those elected to respond to the crisis, the political classes, along with the states and institutions of global capital (US, EU, IMF, World Bank etc) have persisted with neo-liberal solutions to a neo-liberal crisis: the neoliberal trap. Thus we have the austerity agenda in the UK and Ireland and, ironically, chaos in Greece. What we are seeing is an all-out assault not on the banks and the market speculators (who created the crisis with some help from our governments) but on the public sector and the wider public sphere, a drive towards privatization by the back door and the end of the public sphere and maybe even democracy.
So what chance is there, in the long run, that public service broadcasting in Britain, which we depend upon to explain crises such as this and enable us to think about them intelligently, is going to hold out against this assault? For a start, as you have argued, it shouldn’t be bringing itself down to the lowest common denominator of the shouty social media – the twitter feeds and blogs. But alas it seems to be going that way.
Anyway, keep the faith comrade!
I was mostly talking about the BBC though, like everything else at the moment, it’s getting a bit of a savage beating from the CONDEM government. Public funding does give the BBC some leeway and room to not pursue the commercial side to the same degree and its charter directs it against many market pressures.
Man, fuck the Olympics. I’m no fan of sport anyway but all the corporate shilling has gotten waaaay too much. I understand from the apoplectic response of several right wing pundits and MPs that the opening ceremony was a poke in the eye to them so at least there’s that, even if the Critical Mass cyclists were being kettled and arrested at the same time.
I agree with you on the politics here, but I don’t know what can actually be done about it. I feel politically impotent. Protests don’t work, democracy doesn’t work, the British people rejected electoral reform and it looks like even Lords reform isn’t going to make it. It’s immensely disheartening.
I am not sure if public TV is necessarily the answer. After all, if the news channel is funded by the government, isn’t it biased towards the governments policies? How different is that from a private channel, which just may have a different bias? I think the source of funding does not matter. In the end it is the channel, it’s leadership and its journalists who have to decide if they will present good journalism and not compromise their ethics, or if they will only tell the public what it wishes to hear.
That’s not how it works with the BBC which is publicly funded but independent of government. In other places state media is a propaganda organ so that is also a threat.
The BBC though a fraudulant TV licence
collect $billions from the public under an
threat if the don’t pay they then facing
imprisonment or a fine in the return for
allowing in granting such a fraudulant tv
licence the british govt of the day is able
have a 24 / 7 worldwide platform to spin
out its political propaganda fantasies….
The BBC news programmes are a farce
where BBC staff interview BBC staff or
their partners in the newspaper realm
whom spin their utter nonsense /as in
pleasing the political agenda of the day.
The common people having no access
to the BBC platform despite they are
through fraud forced funding a BBC.
There’s a programme “Question Time”
which was politicians facing a audience
( though if it still runs I don’t know I
gave watching BBC many moons ago)
however programme Question Time
was not ever live as portrayed it was
recorded thus politicians could add or
remove whatever parts they pleased
the programme was a complete farce.
Such about sums up the BBC a fraud
as a farce which the public forced fund.
If the public were told they had to fund
CABLE TV or SKY TV they would refuse
where say they need not be forced fund
private companies /such being the case
with the BBC it being a private company
which the public should not be forced in
funding such subscription should choice
as with SKY / CABLE being of individual
choice not forced to pay through fraud.
As for the BBC apart from the appalling
propaganda news programmes // what
they produced (as I recall) was ever in
looking to past history ELIXABETH 1
as a example they never seemed look
unto the future t’was always the past
in enforcing the present brainwashing
other programmes of the same nature
just utter nonsense where $billions on
$Billions t’was wasted on brainwashing
the public // resulting in holding hands
with the USA and venturing unto wars
conflict worldwide in bringing death to
millions / man woman child butchered
destruction as torture / suffering / as
injustice having / knowing no bounds.
Except that this isn’t the case. It’s publicly funded but not an arm of the government and is much less politicised than Sky News which, while less biased, is more like the British version of Fox.
It’s still imperfect, but of the models available it seems to work best.
Very well said.
So true! And congrats on being freshly pressed!
Well said; timely and true – it is prevalent here in Canada, too. Not as bad as in the US, but we do see bias journalism in our broadcast and print ‘news’ media.
congrats on FP!
I have been a journalist for more than a decade and I completely agree with your view.
well said! now if only they were to listen to this critique and make something of it!
CAPITAL IDEA! You’ve hit it on the nose. I like your style…even if our opinions are from the opposite sides of the aisle…rather like my posting partner and I at OUR POETRY CORNER! Keep up the good work!
There are news outlets that still give the basic facts and little-to-no op ed: AP and Reuters come to mind. I’m from the US and keep up with the news through the BBC, Reuters, AP, RT, and the English translated versions of Spiegel and Le Monde–among other things. Via the educational version of YouTube, Open Culture, TED, podcasts, and RSA plus other online venues, it is possible to hear the intelligent people of the day speak in depth on the issues troubling the world.
I agree, there’s too much opinion, but the biggest problems seem to be: 1) People don’t have very good critical thinking/filtering skills. 2) People don’t want to take the time to filter.
Ready-made opinion sells because it allows people to avoid using too much time to think. Obviously, I find this disagreeable, but it’s not unusual. In history newspapers have sold wars and propagandized–overwhelming the public imagination. Nothing new 😦
As an atheist I’m very much behind the idea that more critical thinking (and media-savvy) skills need to be taught in schools 🙂
Analytic thinking and community service are taught at Punaho on Oahu, but didn’t leave much of an effect on Barack Obama. I also an atheist have a severe view of opinions based on religion and wholeheartedly wish that public service were the criterion for politicians rather than the career kind we now have who for all their bluster are bought and paid for lock, stock and barrel with a possible very few exceptions; so is it any wonder that the entire bulk of opinion/news is biased based upon a false premise to begin with?
I’m a theist, but I’m a supporter of critical inquiry. On that much, we agree. Carl Sagan’s baloney detection kit from the book Demon Haunted World and Michael Shermer’s thoughts on the same are useful–even if I cannot agree with them on all points. Theism doesn’t preclude critical thought, but critical thought does preclude credulity as seen in fundamentalism and fanaticism of any kind. Hope that makes sense 😉
Filtering is exacerbated by the bubble (see: http://www.thefilterbubble.com/). Even the well-meaning can find it hard to think critically when the internet is increasingly designed to send them the material they want (you stay on a website longer if it doesn’t make you think about things you don’t like).
The business model out outlets like Reuters and AP will be threatened as newspapers fold faster too – who will buy the material? It’s worth to consider the recent Journatic (http://wydaily.com/local-news/9599-dp-removes-evidence-of-journatic-from-hyperlocal-websites.html) thing to see where the logic of agency reporting can take you, if you follow it down the rabbit hole.
But here I am replying to a comment on a post and not doing anything. I guess it’s like clicking like on a campaign to arrest a warlord (http://www.kony2012.com/) and then not turning out (http://www.bandt.com.au/news/digital/kony-2012-campaigners-become-invisible).
So. Let’s get out.
True, filter bubbles and confirmation bias abound. In this regard, I probably benefit from some of my more pessimistic and cynical attitudes toward human behavior. 😀
You’re absolutely correct regarding the threat to outlets like AP and Reuters. My only point was the fact they are present, but underutilized by Joe Average. I guess, the question to my mind is: How do you drive Joe Average to be more inquisitive in general? I honestly don’t know the answer to that. But, it seems to be at the crux of the problem–even more than the problem presented by yellow and/or “gonzo” journalism.
I don’t think it’s slacktivism to openly voice these complaints. More people need to be doing it while we still have enough freedom on the internet to do so. At least, I should say, it’s not slacktivism if you are already engaged in your local community in some way. For me, I try to volunteer and raise children with an appreciation for thinking in a more thorough manner. It’s a small contribution, but I think it’s somewhat more useful than point-and-click “change” efforts. Although I’m actively pursuing ways to be more fully involved in the process of turning things around–not easy to find, given the current zombified culture.
I love the following phrase : “Point and click activism”. I don’t think that the plethora of vampire and zombie film and television is at all coincidental either, with respect to “zombified culture”.
Engagement with the community is a vital piece of the puzzle, but I also think that there is a curious cognitive gap – certainly crowd sourcing, and utilising open data to get the best and fastest analysis is a strength of the internet.
But, on the other hand, just as factory production destroyed crafts in the sense of “Master Craftsman” (forgive my simplified “this is just a comment on a blog argumentation), so to does “look anyone with an internet connection and a computer is a journalist, this is democratising information” destroys the craft of journalism.
Now I am stuck in a loop. How did that happen? I blame the parents.
foldedcranes / One can only presume that you as
C.M. Hardin arrived from the same planet /how in
the Hell of Hell’s are you going to recognize truth
when such filter system used to differ are defunk.
One of the saddest facts of modern times and, I believe, a huge factor in the ever more vitriolic ‘gotcha’ atmosphere of what American politics has devolved to. Breaks my heart that so many people are happy to be spoon fed the regurgitated opinions of whatever media outlet they’ve deemed the right one for them. What ever happened to questioning authority? Hell, we’re not even talking about authority, simply questioning?
C.M. Hardin / you keep up with the news ?. You seem not abled
to filter the nonsense from fact what you wrote was disheartning.
Your comment is typical of nonsense that produced by the BBC
a BBC that addresses their audience is if they being aged 5yrs.
I’m not sure what nonsense in my comments you take issue with, but if you want to discuss them, point-by-point, you’re welcome to let me know. If it was something I said on my own blog, please feel free to leave a comment refuting anything I’ve said in detail. I’ve been feeling a bit disheartened lately, and welcome the opportunity to change my mind and expand my understanding of things.
I completely agree and disagree. I work for a newspaper. I have sold advertising, written stories, laid out pages and inserted advertising inserts. I have found that the longer I work for small community newspapers that they have been less likely to fall victim to what large metro papers have.
I do agree that television and radio stations have either gone away from or polarized their news coverage. Community papers have not, at least not the ones that I have worked for. For instance, I constantly get comments from readers who are complaining about how we are too conservative or liberal. How can we really be both. I like to think that this means that we are doing something right.
About citizen journalism. I think it is possible to get good information and for them to be able to break major stories. At the same time the general public has to be careful who they believe because there are many of these people who don’t check their facts and mislead people on purpose.
That is a great metric for determining if you’re hitting the sweet spot, as I said in the article about the BBC. There are instances, however, when reality has a left (or right) wing bias and the middle ground is not actually responsible reporting. I’m a big fan of facts.
“the general public has to be careful who they believe”. I don’t have much faith in that statement. The public is incredibly naive and gullible. “Citizen journalists” are among their ranks. It’s one thing for the public to send of video of a car crash or a tornado; it’s entirely another for the public to write that the mayor is corrupt.
Well said. But I think things have gone too far. “Where there’s muck, there’s brass” or at least a great deal more money to be made from giving people the news they want, rather than the one they need. I think the only bright spot in this is we, as “citizen journalists”, are getting much better at spotting when this is happening and calling them on it..
Yes, we’re in trouble.
In the United States, investigative journalism — which is expensive to produce, requires long hours of detective work and patience, and needs the backbone of legal defense — is long gone from the scene, largely replaced by fluff in the shrinking space available for news.
Meanwhile, the readership seems more interested in celebrities than in issues or facts that actually impact their lives. You get the picture.
As I said, we’re in trouble.
To my mind this just increases the need for news that’s willing to buck that, to inform and educate rather than to pander. Market forces dictate that’s not going to happen though.
Truly, one of our biggest problems is giving the public what they need vs what they want. The want the crossword puzzle. They need the city council story.
Intentional irony or self-contradiction?
I don’t really blog about the news etc very much, this is actually my fiction/writing blog. So neither? 🙂
In addition to BBC UK news, try NPR also.
Yes, you put it very nicely indeed. It does seem like the world is gaining an increasing amount of sycophant “reporters” – people acting obsequiously towards others and giving them what they want to hear in hopes of servile flatter. As a future student of journalism I find this rather disturbing – and not just because of the threat blogs would pose on my job security. The ethics are shadows if not completely invisible. No wonder so many of my acquaintances dislike the industry (or what’s left of it anyway) so much.
It’s not that I’m against an editorial POV or bloggers per se. Rather I think we need a contrast. Someone who gives you THE news, without the conceptual, ideological filtering and presentation being so prevalent. Maybe universities is where that can start.
As a 30-year newspaper journalist, I believe that “citizen journalism” is not only a danger to the newspaper business, but also a danger to democracy itself. Who will fill the role of the Fourth Estate when the local newspaper goes out of business? Some guy with an iPhone? Real, professional journalists are the watch dog and guard dog of society, and without them, we may be lost.
I think there’s a place for it, even if it is a diminished role. The phone-wielders and bloggers are great witnesses, providing raw, POV information but I cannot help but feel there’s too much bias there. Rather than trying to contrast with that, mainstream media (if it’s appropriate to call it that any more) is trying to play catch up rather than playing on the differences that make it better in many regards. Shame. 😦
Great post! I can’t help but admit I don’t know where (at least here in the US,) we transitioned away from the Hearst-fueled ‘yellow journalism’ of the gilded age to an emphasis on objectivity over everything else–I wonder who will lead the pendulum back this time around?
Like so many other problems it would require a sea-change in people’s priorities and a willingness to pursue genuine change. A reprioritisation. That’s not going to happen without some catalytic event I fear. I sort of ‘anti-9/11’.
I agree. “News” these days isn’t the same. At least in the United States. I Can’t really speak with any great knowledge of news anywhere else. It seems much more pointed and sensational in the good old U. S. of A than it used to be…. I feel like it is mostly about ratings. Fox News for super-conservatives, MSNBC for liberals, CNN for those who are somewhere in the middle. Most “news” content now includes shows where people rant for their particular political party/affiliation. It’s obvious.
At the same time I question the idea of the possibility of unbiased journalism at all. No matter who is doing the reporting, there will always be biases inserted. Even if carefully edited, and fact-checked, and reviewed. Facts are facts, but interpretation varies. I wonder whether people just used to be more idealistic and trusting of “reputable” sources, journalists included.
I think we all need to take responsibility for our own knowledge. At least to some extent. In my (biased) opinion, we are all just a little too used to having everything at the tip of our fingers, and if it isn’t available for download in 2.5 seconds, or if it doesn’t show up on our search engine on the first try…we’re not interested.
I agree. Humans cannot help but insert some of their own bias but something similar to medical or scientific ethics, peer review, an awareness of that bias would go a long way.
Good point. But, I think this paints the ‘citizen journalist’ as a meandering, gas filled, only their opinion counts type journalist–which is somewhat accurate. But, there are outlets that consider fact for the sake of fact and report on that…they just aren’t popular.
Well I was surprised to get FP as I just dashed this post off in a fit of pique about the Olympics coverage. Given more time to think I may have elaborated. Still, when talking in broad generalities you’re bound to miss the exceptions 😦
precisely correct. it’s been years since we have had the news hour and I certainly miss it. It is no longer a service and conduit of info. because the focus is on ratings and attracting advertisers. Such a pity
I’m an old leftie, so yes, I see it very much in those terms. Market forces don’t allow for the best to flourish, only the most profitable. We need other ‘evolutionary criteria’ for some arenas of life, IMO.
I completely agree with your idea of the citizen journalist, they (or we actually) are just as important as the normal broadcast news, but obviously with good comes bad becausegetting to the opinions worth listening to requires a lot of weeding.
Thank you Rita. I do think it’s important but I do also feel we need news with the kind of reach, depth and ability to be well researched that conventional media could – if it so chose – continue to be.
A citizen journalist is good at getting video of a tornado in a cornfield, but NOT good at getting the story about the corn, if you see what I mean.
May I ask why you will not be watching Newsroom again?
As a Brit US culture is (or rather has become) somewhat alien to me and the issues the show is addressing seem like no-brainers to me. Something about the style and pacing, other than the powerhouse opening, also didn’t work for me.
i agree with you in general. but i wonder if you aren’t trading one myth for another. while reading your post, i was reminded of a complaint often put up to more neutral/less ideological news outlets: that they are restrained by their desire to always be balanced. So, on hand, you have more ideological outlets screaming (and you can include blogs here) but on the other hand, you have neutral outlets that are not analyzing but rather reporting a string of he saids, she saids.
even if you argue that the more neutral press should spend less time focused on balance and more time on analysis, i guess i’d ask you if analysis is ever not ideological. i know it’s a bit of an academic argument–a bit too earnest. but i guess i’m not sure if the myth of the “analyzing journalist” isn’t almost as mythical as the citizen journalist is.
Reality isn’t always ‘fair and balanced’. Some things simply are or are not. It’s through this misguided attempt to be ‘fair and balanced’ that we get nonsense like the evolution/creation ‘controversy’ and climate change denial.
1. Controversy implies a difference of opinion that is hotly contested. By that definition, one does exist surrounding the question of evolution or creation, that is if one cares to investigate what is being said about it.
2. Most critics of the accepted explanation for climate change I know aren’t “deniers” at all, they simply question the conclusions that have been drawn as to its causes, mostly for good, well informed reasons. I think its clear from the OP’s comments that mainstream media present a pretty one sided view on a whole slew of issues, including climate change. If you’re so convinced of your view on climate change, I would submit that it’s because you have bought into the propaganda fed to us by the very same biased, unbalanced and selective big media outlets this article criticizes.
On these issues there isn’t hot contestation. There’s fact and there’s kooks and propaganda. I see the above as a case-in-point of part of the problem.
you know, I agree with you on the content, but I can’t help but want to put in this caveat: you might be a bit cavalier with the word, “fact”. I will grant you that climate change is a fact, but what dayhiker says is still valid. It’s not that one can deny that climate change is happening, but one can deny the degree to which there is a causal relationship between X and Z.
More to the point I was making above, it’s easy to make the claim that journalists should “analyze “more, but there is no guarantee that the analysis will lead to something that there rest of us would call, information. That’s because on topics such as abortion, gay marriage, even tax policy, both sides have their points. In order to come to a conclusion, i.e., supply us information, someone, an editor let’s say, has to make a decision about truth, and that is where ideology always breaks in.
I think you know this. For me, I just wish journalists would be a little braver about calling public officials on blatant lies, but again, a blatant lie is less common that you might think. Many things that one side might call a lie is really just a truth for someone else. I think that’s the idea I’m missing here.
This make sense?
I agree with both of you and yet I lean more towards what you say.
Analysis can veer towards ideology. Well put, ‘the circular runner’.
love it ..
I won’t leave you a comment telling you how right you are (even though you are) because you’ll get at least a few hundred of those. ha,ha. Just wanted to let you know I linked to your article on my J-school’s website for discussion. Thanks for a great piece.
There is also the way that major broadcast news channels pander to this idea that you’re getting something fresh and insightful from these unfiltered sources. I’m thinking particularly of the BBC’s love affair with getting comments from people on Twitter. They take time on the news which I’d like to see filled with insightful analysis and lazily replace it with Tweets, which are necessarily superficial by their truncated nature. It doesn’t add anything.
I feel that the government run old-school news channels are doing a good job of reporting. In India they are. They are not driven by TRP driven profits and hence keep news reporting plain and simple. On the other hand, private news channels compromise truth for the hype!
I think you make the assumption that there are unbiased news sources out there. It is of course a rhetorical argument. I approach my news with a bell-curved attitude: if I look at a variety of sources, I’m bound to discover a semblance of truth, somewhere in the mess. I also try not to let my own biases filter my own version. I try to listen to Fox and the NYT and The Guardian and de Spiegel and CNN and …
*sigh*
I agree that very large media outlets like Fox News and The Washington Post have a culture of bias, but I am a community journalist, and we cover the news as straightforwardly as we can, if for no other reason that we don’t have enough resources to allow us to spend time slanting the news.
Which raises the issue of whether your news service is sufficient.
I personally don’t mind news services, Fox inlcuded, that bring in slanted commentators. And Fox does at least attempt to bring in people with alternate views; though the ones I’ve followed up with have argued they were only given lip service.
it is interesting to see such a lively discussion here. I remain hopeful intelligence will prevail in this world.
Richard R. Barron / I do not know if you have ventured into
comedy however it worth consider your a natural comedian.
I hope people read see as appreciate your sense of humour.
I agree with much of what you’ve said, but I don’t want completely to discard the citizen journalist or the new contributions he/she is in the position to provide. If possible, we need to maintain many of the institutions associated with unbiased traditional journalism and integrate them with the work of citizen journalists. For instance, citizen bloggers associated with some niche (i.e., hyper-local news or a specialty interest not covered in the mainstream press) might be paired with editors or staff from one or more traditional media outlets. Quality could be controlled, cheerleading minimized, etc. Problem is, even if the outlet with which they were paired provided unbiased information, some people will simply assume that the citizen journalist is damned by association with a traditional outlet.
I guess the question is, can alternative sources of sober, authoritative information be created online? It would require resources, transparency, and a different attitude from those involved.
News has always been gossip; it’s always been a business above all else. (Read it’s history.)
I would suggest that it is highly subjective as to what a reputable source is nowadays, just as it should be. Internet journalism will only increase the variance as to what a reputable source is.
armenia4ever / Once one knows the differ betwixt glass and diamond
then one not a victim of political as material double triple political spin
not victim in understanding though /still victim of times / cirumstances.
One of the worlds best known diamonds was bought by an white man
from an black man for the price of glass // the black man but unaware
of the value of that which he found the white man but t’was well aware.
There be but a reputable source for every individual / that source be
found within via meditation /in one’s efforts turning the senses inward
in bringing a unfolding of the spiritual self. Not of ideas as beliefs but
that of practical spiritual experience bringing clarity of understanding
in answering all one’s questions Whom am I ?. What’s lifes purpose ?.
On PC search put (words of peace) or (words of peace global) on site
a selection of videos in which Prem Rawat talks explains meditation of
one’s spiritual development through practice of meditation /one going
beyond belief beyond ideas where knowing truth of creation / creator.
Prem dedicated his life in aid to all whom wish go beyond ideas belief
to that of meditation in understanding ones knowing true spiritual self.
OK, I think that’s enough conspiracy theories and ‘spiritual’ woo thank you very much. No more comments thank you.
Could you put this into your own words? I’m having a hard time understand it.
You’ve made some good points here, but I disagree that its market pressure that’s ruined modern journalism (if you can even call it that anymore). All one need do is a little research to see that most mainstream media is owned by a tightening handful of mega corporations, all of which use their companies as propaganda engines of their own or their friends’ political agenda, as you’ve briefly hinted at here.
Media exists today not to inform the public, but to control public opinion. If that has lead to the rise of the “citizen journalist” to fill the gap, bound by ethics or not, I’m grateful someone at least is still interested in attempting to report the truth and ask the tough questions that need asking. But besides the “citizen journalists” out there, who I would argue you wrongly paint all with the same brush, there is a whole new generation of independent news organizations run by trained and competent journalists who haven’t sold out for fast cars and big houses and who take their calling quite seriously.
Keyword, corporations.
Would you get on an airliner that was flown by a “citizen pilot?” It’s an extreme example of the concept, but is a valid comparison. It is a mistake to perceive journalists simply as people who attend meetings and chase ambulances. The public have no experience, no education, and no talent in genuine journalism. Just showing up with a phone and a Twitter account doesn’t make you a journalist any more than showing up with a tool box makes you a mechanic.
As far as “corporate” goes, your example may be true for Fox and NBC, but as Chief Photographer at my newspaper and Editor of our magazine, I can honestly say that no one in the chain of command ever asks me to slant my coverage in any direction.
Richard R. Barron / You relate to the public as if they be
aged 5yrs giving the impression your the sheperd / they
the sheep such being the typical attitude of BBC staff &
managment with their self awarded GOLDEN BONUSES
employed for life /a law unto themselves to do as please
at the expense of the public // a public that BBC staff as
managment treat as if they mere sheep to fleece /whom
having no rights victims of BBC fleecing & brainwashing.
Victims of a fraudulant TV LICENCE /which totally illegal.
dayhikerbigx / your comment very much hits the nail on the head.
If there such a new generation of independent news organizations
producing fact not fiction then thats indeed good “Breaking News”.
LAST YEAR the USA govt spent $13 Billion in keeping information
classified they do not wish it be known the criminal activity by govt.
Those whom dare speaking out face the wrath of govt their lives
destroyed by loss of employment / imprisonment //// or far worse.
One can understand why the media ( journalists ) live in fear that
speaking truth can be costly to them as family /it’s a dire situation.
Thank you so much for sharing this. I totally agree with you. Media is polarizing and biasing itself in an effort to attract an audience. This is by far the best opinion I have read on the matter and hopefully it will be used to create some kind of change. 🙂
http://stepstochangetheworld.wordpress.com/
There certainly isn’t any code of ethics for the blogosphere, something a few of us have tried to rectify to no avail…The future of journalism is bleak…
Let me add that a truly savvy citizen should never rely on just one media outlet for news content. In my community, when you read about a public figure being charged for a crime, for example, you should read it in our paper, then in the state paper, then watch it on the local television stations. At that point you will certainly have more facts than you would from just one news agency.
At my newspaper, we read other papers and watch local tv for this very reason, to find out if we might have missed something.
As far as the pubic in concerned, I recently talked on one of my blogs about how it doesn’t take much to stir the public into mass hysteria. All it takes is a few seconds of appalling video and bam! Instant lynch mob. This is the same public from which the so-called “Citizen Journalist” is culled, and is a good example of why it is dangerous to rely on them.
http://richardbarron.net/knowledgeum/2012/07/21/the-predictable-rage/
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Well said.
C.M. Hardin. / Can you point out which part of your
comment / was not but nonsensical bubbled blabble.
Your comment being but a branching of mesmerism
which but a auto suggestion of pararelled decievism.
How right you are. Biased opinion is NOT the news.
In reality, when we view the TV in the evening, the presenter should be saying….. “Good evening, here is the 7 o’clock biased opinion”.
I produce editorial cartoons, and try to hit both sides of politics equally over a period of time.
That way, I don’t show any bias, and receive hate mail from all the population, not just half of it.
One can appreciate humour // when people have a
ability in laughing at their own stupidity it going an
long way to that of a more mature mental balance.
Humour goes back centuries in art /early caveman
woman and child / did works of art upon the cave
walls / art having a early birth. T’was in the tombs
of the pharoahs art humour appeared in sketches
done by the tomb builders / some sketched works
of the pharoah in various acts of uncompromising
positions /work today classified being of erotic art.
Thus ones ability to portray humour understanding
via works of art goes back through many centuries.
Amen! Kim*
http://www.100days100ways.wordpress.com
have you heard of Andrew Keen ?
I’m currently developing a thesis broadly centred around the concept of ‘citizen journalism’. It’s a subject around which very little is known, I suspect due to its relative infancy (at least in this current media landscape fuelled by rapid changes in technology, social media, commercialism etc.)
So how do we define ‘citizen journalism’, given that, as you correctly point out, there are those who might choose to call themselves citizen journalists, without undertaking the act of journalism as we understand it? No single definition exists. In my opinion – and this will no doubt change over time – citizen journalism is best defined by a combination of characteristics, drawn from a combination of definitions, and consists of citizens carrying out or partaking in the journalistic process (i.e. news gathering, analysis and dissemination?) through a variety of ‘user-generated content initiatives’, without recourse to institutional journalism.
In any case, I think the ‘mainstream’ media would do well to take note of emerging citizen journalists and attempt to engage with the practice. Not only will it serve to broaden their resource base, but it should allow them to (ideally, though not necessarily) apply those ethical and legal checks that they should, in theory, carry out as professional journalists/organisations.
* Hermida, A., Thurman, N (2010). Gotcha: How newsroom norms are shaping participatory journalism online. Web Journalism: A New Form of Citizenship?, pp. 46-62. Eastbourne, UK.: Sussex Academic Press.
* Henig, S. (2005). Citizens, Participants and Reporters. Columbia Journalism Review, 8 July. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/politics/citizens_participants_and_repo.php