In case you missed it, a couple weeks ago a “citizen journalist” on CNN’s iReport.com posted a claim that Steve Jobs had suffered a heart attack. The report caused Apple’s stock to plunge and my disgust with citizen journalism to soar. Up until then, sites like iReport, The Uptake and CBS’s EyeMobile iPhone application, had existed on the fringes of my consciousness as a mere annoyance, but nothing to take seriously. Because, honestly, who cares what Joe Schmo has to say about breaking news?
But, Andrew! Citizen journalists scooped the mainstream media on the earthquake in China using just Twitter! Oh please, indiscriminate exclamation point user, what is that worth? That’s only mildly interesting because they weren’t lying. And I’m not for a second going to cite a Tweet as credible reporting. I’m going to wait till it pops up on CNN.
Now, I know what you’re thinking, but please don’t dismiss my disdain as pure J-school snobbery. It’s not, I promise. The idea of allowing the general public to post video reports on what they perceive as news is all fine and good. And if it happens to be a piece of breaking, fascinating, compelling news, all the more power to them. But when you allow these reports to be viewed as anything more than speculation and rumor it becomes a dangerous business. I’m not calling every person who posts on iReport a liar. I’m sure there are plenty of legitimate guerrilla journalists out there doing good work, but the point is I don’t know who’s who. And I never will be able to. When the mainstream media is rife with bias, how can you even remotely expect to glean a purer truth out of citizen journalism?
I’m also not saying that Mr. Schmo can’t do what I’m learning to do. Much of journalism is instinct and polished intuition, and knowing how to ask questions isn’t incredibly complicated. But the issue comes with integrity. A journalist lives and dies by his or her integrity and credibility. If there has been anything drilled into me over the past four years it is that I must be above reproach. There must not even be a hint of a conflict of interest or a glimmer of inaccuracy in my reporting. And once a hole is found in your credibility, just once, you’re finished.
Consider Tania deLuzuriaga. She recently resigned from the Boston Globe after some racy e-mails between her and a school official who she covered while at The Miami Herald became public. No one said she lied in her reporting, but even the appearance of a conflict on interest may have destroyed her career in journalism. I’ll be surprised if she ever works in news again.
So, when you combine those two, the ease with which lies can fester on the Internet and the average citizen’s inability to practice credible journalism, you get a bleak picture of citizen journalism. I will never go to a citizen journalism site for my news. Perhaps you disagree? Perhaps I’ve been unfair? What do you think? Is citizen journalism reliable? Let’s debate in the comments section.


5 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 21, 2008 at 3:33 am
Chris Dykstra
Hey– Thanks for following us at The UpTake. However, you incorrectly group us with iReport and EyeMobile. Unlike those two services, The UpTake edits and reviews each story before it is published under our name. In other words, we stand by our stuff. We don’t accept random submissions.
Our goal is to begin to bridge the purely citizen generated (iReport, Youtube) and the purely professional. We believe that citizens are fully capable of telling important news stories to their neighbors, but integrity, fairness, facts and coherence matter a great deal. So we provide our citizen journalists with training and a professional editorial team.
Remember – even professional journalists are citizen journalists.
Chris Dykstra
Chair
The UpTake
October 21, 2008 at 4:29 pm
afatato
Chris, your purpose is a noble one, and I’m sorry you feel that I’ve inappropriately grouped you. However, I still stand by my point and, quite frankly, I remain unconvinced that your website isn’t a part of this group.
If I want to be an UpTake reporter, then I must fill out this volunteer form. I’m not sure what you do with this form, your website doesn’t seem to make it clear, but the fields show painfully inadequate accountability. There is a “Previous Journalism Class” field that simply says “Yes” or “No.”? Really? That’s all it takes?
But beyond that, I will still never go to the UpTake for my news because there are enough screw-ups in the mainstream media and I can’t fathom the amount of mistakes that are possible when you allow regular citizens to submit reports. You can edit all you want, but the bottom line is (I would think), you have no idea of the validity of these reports. These people aren’t your employees, they’re loose identities on the internet that you’re trusting (it would appear to me anyway, and if you don’t make some effort to prove otherwise on your site, then what’s it worth?).
Sure, there will always be a level of trust, but if I’m going to trust, I’m much more likely to put wary trust in the NY Times than your editors.
All professional journalists may be citizens, but all citizens aren’t journalists. Kind of catchy though, I’ll give you that.
October 28, 2008 at 10:27 am
Steve Garfield
I think we all need to be critical consumers of media, whether it be twitter, CNN, or blogs. If you go to twitter right now, there’s a list at the top. It says:
“Hot Political Topics: CNBC, Ted Stevens, Michelle Obama, GOP, Republican, Marxist, Bush”
Click on ‘Michelle Obama’ and you’ll see a stream of twitter posts. At this point I have no idea who these people are, but I do know that with enough people reporting on one thing, the truth will surface.
That’s something I can rely on.
In this case, I see that Micelle Obama was on Jay Leno last night. Many people are posting that. I can also look into it further by following some of the posted links. It’s interesting to me. It’s also the first place I saw this news.
Works for me.
October 29, 2008 at 9:43 am
Steve Garfield
JD Lasica just wrote this on his blog:
“I repeated my mantra that the “filter” (gatekeeper role) of the traditional media can serve a beneficial purpose but more often than not turns into a conventional wisdom echo chamter where self-appointed gasbags declare winners and losers and play up or ignore news stories on their own whims, with little rhyme or reason. To get a gauge of a segment of the public’s thinking on the election, don’t turn on CNN, MSNBC or Fox, but turn to election.twitter.com.
I also repeated my admonition for users not to take items at face value because they read it on the Internet. The responsibility has been passed on to us to vet and fact-check blog posts and email rumors — you know about Snopes.com, right? — before passing them along to friends or co-workers.”
http://www.socialmedia.biz/2008/10/takeaways-from.html
October 30, 2008 at 4:04 pm
afatato
Thanks for your contribution, Steve, from SteveGarfield.com. I certainly see how one might personally rely on Twitter for the latest breaking news, it’s just not me. I still would rather get my newsblasts for news sources, but, like you said, it works for you.
As far as this second post… I remain unconvinced that Twitter is less likely to be filled with “conventional wisdom.” Somehow fake experts on TV seem to hold more weight than fake nobodies on the internet. If I want compelling opinion from the internet, I’ll consult a blog I trust. (And, to be fair, I don’t generally watch the 24-hour news cycle on TV, and get most of my news from print websites. The experts in their articles seem a bit more credible. Also, to be fair to Twitter, I’m not opposed to people posting compelling links, I’m just not going to put much weight in a tweeted opinion.)
That said, I certainly agree with the second paragraph. It’s our responsibility to be intelligent news consumers.