Citizen Journalists Arent Evil

Well said.

Who knew your body makes you think it is hungry when it is thirsty! But seriously, good take on upheaval regarding citizen journalists.

Thank you. I still think that there needs to be a sense of responsibility on the part of the Citizen Journalist...that just grabbing an announcement and running with it without a little fact checking isn't the best idea...but mistakes are made and are usually fixed.

I think that part of the bonus of social media (oh, look! I know what's going on and can share!) is also the problem (oh, look! I know what's going on and can share!). But we'll get through this, and we'll all get better at it.

Well, the deal here is that as citizen journalists, we can't be fired for being wrong. So reputation is the only currency that counts, and sometimes, whether you're right or wrong, reputation can grow and spread.

I think it's natural for main stream media and people who spent years in journalism school to feel threatened by citizen journalists, and therefore, jumping all over citizen journalists is easy. But consider also how many times main stream media relies on citizen journalists, because they no longer have enough of their own staff to cover every story that might be important.

Citizen journalism has become a force because people felt there was a need to be filled, but we're "unregulated" and too many people don't spend the time to source material or look into credentials and take everything on face value, making the mix of fact and fiction a whole lot harder to sort out than ever before.

But like everything else in life, it's Caveat Emptor- let the buyer beware- and that's true for all those main stream media people who are looking to rely on bloggers to help them with their jobs.

Chris - one other thing for folks to remember (irrespective of who you are) is that a healthy dose of fact-checking never hurt anyone.

Best,
Aaron | @astrout

I agree.

If people are going to be stupid enough to sell their shares on a rumour then they deserve what they get.

I learnt early on with news that it was still often someones interpretation of the facts. Atleast with citizen journalism we have an indication of the "biases" of the author.

And I didn't know that the body can't report thirst - as I do feel thirsty regularly but not hungry.

Just an ironic correction about thirst (I'm being a citizen journalist). Our bodies do have receptor sites for thirst.

Luckily, some of us have enough receptor sites for trusted information that we'll scout around for good water.

Cheers!

(:

"Let’s put down the torches and pitchforks," indeed. I'm hard-pressed to think of any time in history (or in fiction, for that matter) when an irate mob armed with fire and pointy things was ever a sign of a measured, rational, constructive response.

Chris,

I think it's important in these discussions to make the distinction between unintentional errors and the kind of pranking at best or stock-manipulation at worst that we saw in the Steve Jobs/heart attack episode. The Jobs report was created to fool people. But most citizen journalism is created/reported in good faith, I'd bet.

But what it really comes down to is the editing. If CNN wants to turn Citizen Journalism into a product through its iReport.com, it's not enough to create the tagline "Unedited. Unfiltered. News." and think they've covered all their responsibilities.

These are not just comments on small blogs, but "reports" on the web site of the world's best-known news provider. You'd think they'd realize they need to do more than the bare minimum to fact-check the reports and protect their own brand equity.

I've been in more than a few rooms where MBAs come up with what they think of as the brilliant idea of creating a product that's made up wholly or largely of "YooGeeSee" without giving even passing thought to how they planned to compensate the citizen creators or how they would manage the quality and veracity of the reports. But monetizing the products? They had that completely covered....

Bottom line, I'd argue that citizen journalism - like all journalism - is not a "set it and forget" it process. Vetting and editing has to be part of the process and the higher the profile of the report, the greater the responsibility is on the sponsoring organization to at least try to assure that unverified reports of surprising and important news are true.

I agree that the "told you so" witch hunt against citizen journalists is definitely a little over-the-top.

However, both the citizen journalist and CNN were at fault here. A good journalist will check and double check facts AND substantiate them - citizen journalists need to follow this example. As do any online writers - bloggers especially.

Yet CNN itself made a major faux pas in not double-checking the facts either, particularly on such a major news story. For such a large news corporation, it's more than just bad judgement - it's unprofessional.

I have to play devil's advocate on this one. Speaking from the mainstream media side of things, there is cause to be alarmed when the words of citizen journalists are being taken as fact without accurate research and fact-checking.

I can't speak for other countries, but in my own country we have a whole bunch of regulatory bodies that develop standards and laws (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, to name just a couple) that cover things such as authenticity, privacy, integrity, conflict of interest and much, much more. These standards exist to protect the interests of the public and to ensure the accuracy and validity of information that is dispersed via mainstream media. Citizen journalists do not fall under these guidelines.

However, because anyone can claim to be a journalist these days, it means we as consumers of media have to scrutinize even further, and find the line between what is authentic news reporting and what is editorial/opinion.

How do we deal with this new kind of news? Should people who claim to be citizen journalists be subject to the same guidelines as mainstream media? And who would regulate it? Is it up to standards councils to do this? Media outlets? Or individuals? That is the ultimate question.

Great article from Inc. shows what happens when things are done right only 99.9% of the time. I blogged about it here http://tinyurl.com/49uud3

The truth of the matter is that viewers must be the judge of all information they let into their head. All major networks are full of it sometimes, get that critical thinking cap on. Trust levels are a valuable thing online, those who break that trust (iReporter or any other blogs who ran with the story) loose some value. The desire for trust and value is the balancing point to widespread information.

Citizen journalists have really gotten the crap end of all of the brouhaha with the Job's story et al. Yet, I have to agree with some of your commenters that a healthy dose of fact checking is a great idea.

But ultimately, I think the final approval with citizen journalist news submissions lie with the news networks themselves. News sites have their priorities: Speed is the first consideration. Accuracy second. That's completely backward. I think once they fix that, they clear the stain on 'citizen journalism'. Easy? No. But readers care more about truth from respected news sources than speed.

@Ghennipher....

I think that fast and accurate are equally important in news, but fast without accurate is worse than worthless, because it hurts credibility. And credibility is the only real product a news organization has.

Good interactive newsrooms get this.

i just hope steve's okay

I agree Chris. It's one story. It doesn't mean that the entire concept is suddenly bad. As you rightly point out, mainstream journalists and people in other fields also make errors. Everybody is human. I don't see why Citizen Journalists should be held to a higher standard. People are still learning and you can be sure that people who follow Citizen Journalism are acutely aware after this incident that fact checking is job one for every journalist.

Ron Miller
http://byronmiller.typepad.com

Good point.

And thank Gawd for corrections. Did you know that if you're off by just a couple of miles you can miss Hawaii - forever?

Good thing there's breadth and depth to journalism. Hate to think if CNN or CBS ever reported something erroneously - or the NYT???

Tim is absolutely correct, Chris. Your post doesn't distinguish between a complete accident (the years-old airline story showing up as current) and willful disregard for the truth (the iReport story on Jobs).

Correctness and intention aside, the wonderful/scary/terrible/beautiful thing about citizen journalism is it puts the responsibility for understanding and analysis back on us -- the public. For years, most people relied on the media to shape their opinions. When news was reported globally we only received the American spin. And trust me [or not], there was spin.

In the last 15 years we have been given the gift of exapanding information sources. And now, because of social media, we have come full circle to the original "marketplace of ideas" where everyone [ok everyone with an internet connection] has a chance to speak and be heard.

Yes, we now have to become an engaged participants in the news. Yes, we have to validate our own news sources and sort all the variations together in our own minds to determine what's really going on. CNN or Fox News? The NYT or the National Enquirer? The BBC or the Chinese Government? Certainly the media makers have great responsibility, whether they are large corporations or citizen journalists. However, as media receivers we have great responsibility too. The ability to determine "truth" is finally back in the hands of the individual. Let's not give it away again.

True. We all make mistakes. But I will add that the term "citizen journalist" does not always apply. In many cases, we should ask ourselves: Is this person a "citizen journalist" or are they committing an "act of journalism?" I think there's a difference. Think about all of the one-hit wonders we love for 8 months before they enter the land of obscurity. I also think that journalists who get so beside themselves about this particular title should get over it. A different tangent somewhat, but I had to go there.

Well said!

I read the esteemed Financial Times, especially on weekends with a red pen. I discover enough typos to fill a couple A4 sheets. These are from well-paid, professional columnists and journalists.

What is that Christian dictum? Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.

Which is why I do not call FT on those errors, although it is tempting since it will make an amusing (to me) and embarrassing (to the FT) post!

@ Shefaly.

Unfortunately, Shefaly, I don't think you can compare a typo to an error on the scale of the Steve Jobs heart attack one. How many typos wiped almost 10% from a company's share price?