tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143088625756367367.post3424119786853810378..comments2023-07-12T07:00:42.975-05:00Comments on News McNabb: "Citizen Journalism" ReaxNewsMcNabbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08040170736717649659noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143088625756367367.post-67913308135707527672008-12-13T15:36:00.000-06:002008-12-13T15:36:00.000-06:00If the adage a picture is worth a thousand words, ...If the adage a picture is worth a thousand words, then your debate, at least in the examples you cited, about citizen journalists lost sight of the key distinction between people providing the images for a story and journalism. It's the words that matter. Your examples seemed to confuse citizen videography with citizen journalists. If pictures are posted with no factual information, interpretation or analysis and leaving it to the viewer to digest and form his/her own story from them, you can't compare it to "Journalism" with a capital J.<BR/> That said, the defenders of capital-J journalism, you self-described "snobs" showed the traditional media's delusion of adequacy. And, as someone who spent 25 years in TV news, I say that with a still warm and fuzzy feeling toward my former colleagues. Examples:<BR/> Bruce Whiteaker (my former boss) says he EARNED the title of Broadcast Journalist through years of training and experience on the job. Yes, but a degree and logging hours in a newsroom does not a capital-J journalist make. We all know people who have survived even the cutthroat world TV news with little talent and less devotion to the craft, reporting stories from one pay check to the next. And some who were paid buckets of money because they could communicate what others wrote for them and yet called themselves "Broadcast Journalists". <BR/> Suzanne Black points to the code of ethics and the vetting of stories for truthfulness and bias. In 25 years in the business I never saw the code posted anywhere although I think we all believed there was one somewhere. And most of us tried to live by the code, but it's not black and white and the interpretation of "truthfulness" shifts from story to story, impacted by deadlines, unconscious bias, personalities and the need to report a story in a formula sort of way that is, sadly, a given in newsrooms. Anyone who has worked in a newsroom and NOT seen a colleague twist a story or a soundbite to shade or even distort the truth in order to fill a preconceived notion of what "the story is really about", should read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias for examples.<BR/> And Ray Niekamp suggests that our capital-J journalists check facts and the accuracy of sources. But in the day-to-day newsroom fact checking is done only on an "as needed" basis. If we don't go into an interview with a source with the agenda of catching them in a lie, capital-J journalists will simply accept the sources' version of the story without question. <BR/> So if you are still with me, here's my take on the question of citizen journalism:<BR/> First, the mainstream media needs to admit that journalism today (as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow) is entertainment. It is in the business of entertaining readers or viewers because if the audience isn't entertained, it will go elsewhere.<BR/> Second, while mainstream journalists are capable of hitting grand slams of noble, life-affecting reporting, that kind of quality journalism is very, very rare. Day to day, locally and nationally, journalism is a series of singles. Pete Rose would have been a good journalist with a lot of hustle, a high batting average and a habit of constantly annoying the opposition.<BR/> Finally, the truth is that capital-J journalists ARE citizen journalists with all the character flaws, the bias and blind spots that come with being human. That is the beauty of it, all reporters are human. So rather than dismiss "citizen" journalists or give undue credibility to "professional" journalists--we are all journalists with a little j, and should be judged by the quality of our information.<BR/> Niekamp says he wouldn't blindly trust the information he gets from FunkyVideoMan5, but will he blindly trust the information from Keith Olberman or Bill O'Reily, and by extension their organizations NBC and Fox?<BR/> I love watching them, I am constantly informed and entertained, but at the end of the broadcast I have to take it all with a grain of salt and decide for myself as best I can what is true and what is less so based on opposing sources of information. I do that because I know that Keith and Bill, Brian and Katie and the armies of journalists behind them charged with making sense of the world are all human. They are all citizen journalists.<BR/> Thank you for listening. I don't blog often but what I lack in quantity I make up for in verbosity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com