Citizen Journalism and the Future of Journalism, Tyler Grant

Photo courtesy of trendwatching.com

The shift from paper to pixels has had a profound effect on that state of media. Critics of the new media scoff at the idea that anyone can be a journalist. But the reality is that anyone can post newsworthy events to the internet via blogs, or social media websites such as Twitter. The change in media formats isn't going to stop, but the defenders of traditional journalism won't stop either. The battle lines have been set with both sides having valid arguments. On the side of the new media critics, there is the argument that people will pay for good content. This notion is backed with the mentality that paid journalists lend more credence to a story than someone who simply writes unchecked information to get a story out to the world. Defenders of new media would argue that the move into the realm of new "free" media is where the majority of people prefer to get their news. On the surface, the arguments appear to be about about money as opposed to the value of content, but the underlying issue comes down to credibility.

In December, 2009 at the Federal Trade Commission hosted workshop "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age," media baron Rupert Murdoch stated his case plainly when he said, "[s]ome rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks, or even months in their stories, all under the tattered veil of 'fair use." Here, the problem of plagiarism arises. Once it's been established that someone has lifted content from another source without properly crediting the original author, any semblance of validity dissolves. To solidify this point, Murdoch asserted that, "their almost wholesale misappropriation of our stories is not 'fair use.' To be impolite, it's theft." This statement serves to discredit citizen journalists further by aligning them with the common criminal. The clichéd idea of "you get what you pay for," hammers home the point Murdoch is trying to make.

For those who view Murdoch as nothing more than businessman looking to control the media for profit, they can wade through the countless blogs and Tweets offered up by the citizen journalists. Arianna Huffington sticks up for citizen journalists though: "The contributions of citizen journalists, bloggers, and others who aren't paid to cover the news are constantly mocked and derided by the critics of new media who clearly don't understand that technology has enabled millions of consumers to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation -- from couch potato to self-expression." One meaning behind this statement is the citizens of the world are free to be citizen journalists should they wish to participate in informing the masses about important events. Another meaning Huffington's statement implies serves as newsicide for the citizen journalist. "[F]rom couch potato to self-expression" leaves a person with thought that citizens are entering the field of journalism not to inform, but to express themselves and their opinions. A problem with this is opinions are often not fact-checked. It happens. And the result is a loss of credibility.

Fact-checking isn't just a problem of the citizen journalist, either. Both accredited journalists and citizen journalists displayed a lack of restraint when reporting the death of Canadian folk singer, Gordon Lightfoot on February 18th, 2010. A Twitter post that day, purported to be from Lightfoot's grandson, stated his grandfather had died. Thanks to the immediacy of the internet, the rumour spread like a virus. But it wasn't only citizen journalists who were infected, the mainstream media reported the story as well. Mr. Lightfoot himself heard the news of his death on a radio report. By the afternoon of the 18th, the story's retractions were posted to the internet. This slip displays that even the most educated professionals can get the story wrong as well, but they have the opportunity to maintain their credibility more easily than the average person sitting behind a keyboard at home.

The arguments for both side will persist, and so will their stories. Consumers will have to determine for themselves who to trust. Difficulty in this situation lies in the aspect that there is no governing board for journalist like there is on other professions such as medicine. Nobody would choose just anyone for sound medical advice, but people are often willing to get news from anyone who offers a hint of interesting story. Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch will always have professionalism on their side, but citizen journalists will have free news on theirs. Either way, the argument is going to continue.