37 Responses to “When I Hear the Term “Citizen Journalist,” I Reach For My Pistol! (The Blogging Rage)”. Here are some.

• Jack Thompson: I generally agree with you–the majority of blogging, by the numbers, is dreadful (=terrible) in style, writing, research, etc. But most of this material is also harmless, in my opinion. More importantly, there is plenty of good blogging to go around–including this forum and your post as prime examples–and this arena, at its best, can act as a useful watchdog on long-established media giants.

• Spencer: Jon, I definitely agree that “citizen journalism” cannot, and will never replace its traditional counterpart. Traditional journalism involves ethics, both taught and learned, research, analysis, and objectivity. Citizen journalism is highly biased, typically opinionated, and one-sided.

However, newspapers cannot ignore this trend. People want to be heard. Blogs give people today easy access to a distributed communication channel that can potentially reach millions of people over time. No matter how worthless or not fully satisfactory their “reporting” can be, those who are writers place value on their own work. And if they have a strong following, that value only increases, even if they have no official journalistic credentials.

If newspapers want to succeed in the future, I personally feel they need to accept citizen journalism. They need to show that everyday persons’ opinions are valued in mass media, then develop those opinions and discussions with “true journalism.”

• Tom Grubisich: Despite the provocative headline on your post, most of what you say about citizen journalism is true. I think citizen journalism can prove most valuable on the community level, where news — at least the reliable number of it — can’t be bought by the pound. You single out the “housewife [who blogs] from the city council meeting for free.” But that housewife may be a highly qualified professional who is on maternity leave. Her donated citizen journalism may hold considerable potential. She might need some tips on how to practice journalism, and that’s why every site that uses citizen journalism needs to be backed up (=supported) by editorial skills and knowledge. Journalists and citizens — including, I hope, many “housewives” — can and should work in partnership to do what often is done at all because there aren’t enough hired journalists.

• mikey: Citizen journalists? hah. The “real serious journalists” in traditional media often report the ‘serious’ issues – like Obama’s bowling scores, and whether Britney is wearing underwear this week, or they report those annoying facts that fit into their point of view. At least with citizen journalists there is more diversity of content and a good amount of common sense, and important, relevant – even controversial – issues provoke some discussion. But the Rock Street Journal doesn’t have the space, time or curiosity to even mention some issues.

• Stu Adnderson: Guess what? It’s too late to worry about the difference between “citizen journalists” and “official journalists.” The money-boys (and slow-moving editors) have already killed almost all the geese that used to lay the golden eggs. Most newspapers and magazines have adopted Detroit’s saying: “Hey, our product isn’t selling. So let’s make it worse in quality. Maybe we’ll sell more.” And we cannot even blame China for the death of this industry. Why? Because USA journalism is comitting suicide.

• Jennifer: As a housewife, a mom of three little girls, a college graduate (with a degree in journalism, no doubt), a former newspaper reporter/editor/designer, I might add my own blog, I have only this point to make:

You get what you pay for. Journalism — and by that term, I mean the hardnosed, fearless, dogged reporting done by professionals who know what to look for and how to find it, like those from the Columbus Ledger and Sunday Ledger-Enquirer who won the 1955 Pulitzer Prize in Public Service. I left my job at my local daily when my third baby girl was born. Do you know that drivers for my local pizza delivery company make more per hour than I did as a trained and experienced professional working in my field? That is no joke, folks.

I agree with those who say that so-called “citizen journalists” are no substitute for the real thing. But the fifth generation newspaper person in me says, “How can more information be a bad thing?” I am frustrated with our industry and the backward thinking that now governs it. So why is it that tested reporters who have spent a lifetime polishing their skills struggle to ever reach the mark of $50,000? Such a proposition is laughable.

It isn’t about the numbers. It’s about understanding that quality requires investment. If people in newspaper business are determined to make that investment to improve the product it will then become very important to readers, and will then drive profits.

• Wendy Hoke: This is laughable. I was very frustrated when I read the “housewife” reference and here’s why: I can guarantee you that that housewife who sits at city council meetings and questions the approval of a new development project’s impact on her home, neighborhood and the safety of her children is asking better questions (read: ones that other readers want answered) then the 23-year-old cub reporter making $19,000 a year and living with his parents.

• sue moses: Jon, I really see your point but you have to come alive. people will always want the juiciest news and while you and your editors are discussing what makes news the “citizen reporter” delivers the news just the way it is, so what do you expect? It is another innovation in information delivery. I suggest you bring out your old journalism book and add “citizen journalist” instead of “a gun”.

• kat: I came to your post because of my disgust (=a very strong feeling of dislike) for the term “citizen journalism.” People with cell phone cameras are more like clueless tourists than real journalists who are educated, trained and bound by a code of professional ethics. In fact, I’d call these videos only slightly better than YouTube.

Though I do see some value in having people on the ground at the right place and time, but that has more to do with luck and opportunity than reporters sent to an event. More like “drive by” witness accounts. That has nothing to do with journalism.

And most of the people I see doing iReports or whatever else are unemployed or other people with a lot of time on their hands, whether it be housewives, students, housewives, overgrown children still living at home, the lazy and otherwise. Even Anderson Cooper is a bit guilty of that. He took his mommy’s money (Gloria Vanderbilt) and started filming himself in countries where people had no voice. He has no formal journalism background, couldn’t get a job even answering phones for ABC and hey, he’s on CNN with his own show now. And I’m not necessarily saying that’s good, in fact CNN once said it’s their budget.