Comments on: The Sherrod Case & Why Citizen Journalism Sucks

By: joel

joel — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:05:56 +0000

Jim you make some excellent points. I oversimplified my premise to make it pithier. The lines (blurred or sharp, real or imagined) between journalist, blogger, and citizen are unclear. I always say that the “wild wild west defense,” the idea that this is a new medium so the rules are unwritten, is a weak defense employed by people who misbehave. In some places the rules may indeed be obvious but this is apparently not one of those places.

By: Jim Coffis

Jim Coffis — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:00:27 +0000

Interesting that you compare Jason Blair and Andrew Breitbart. Blair, a professional journalist, not only had the bona fides expected of a reporter for the NY Times but also editors who should also share some of the blame for his fabrications making it into print. I don’t think Breitbart would call himself a journalist, citizen or otherwise, but his “reports” have been given weight by the Fox network of “professional journalists”.

(Regarding commenter Ross above: Fox intended to run the story which is why the administration rushed to have Ms. Sherrod resign, giving the story more credibility. Fox enables Breitbart with their continued coverage of his stunts. He could not have peddled this story anywhere else and the fact that Vilsack reacted the way he did made the story ok for the rest of the media to run with it.)

I’m afraid that “buyer beware” also applies to the business of news and information.

The business of news has changed considerably since Walter Cronkiite - indeed CBS never really considered their News division to be a business in the way the media is now a business.

I have a vested stake in the ability of “citizen journalists” to provide accurate news and information. It still needs to be verified and most of what we will publish will not have much consequence beyond those personally involved; nonetheless I don’t think all “citizen journalists” suck any more than I think that all “professional journalists” behave as do those employed by FOX - and to be fair and balanced many of the other media outlets.

By: joel

joel — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:54:34 +0000

I regret the error and apologize for it, though it is largely irrelevant to the story. I am not a journalist, though I try to maintain high ethical standards, hence my apology the instant I became aware of my error.

I will revise the post to correct this later today.

By: Ron Ross

Ron Ross — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:50:47 +0000

It was NOT Fox News. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT or don’t call yourself a journalist. Fox did not run the story until AFTER she had resigned. Even CNN made that clear. Don’t continually propate LIES or you become what you decry.

By: Terry Brown

Terry Brown — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:49:07 +0000

Joel….Fox News didn’t even report on this story until after Sherrod had been fired by the White House…and Brietbart has his own independent website, he is not a Fox News employee or contributor.

Just thought I’d help clear that up.

Hope you’re well.

Terry

By: Marc Nogle

Marc Nogle — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:40:37 +0000

Joel, thank you for writing this post. It is unfortunate that the likes of Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner (last name apropos), et al aren’t more superfluous in big media for the reasons you state. They offer a good example to perhaps tempering ‘johnny minutemen’ at the ready with a rifle shooting soundbites from the blogosphere. Today’s manic, hype, righteous, and celebrity driven media ‘counselors’ (Including Fox) seem to believe that their role is to stir up the minions, but they do so with little concern for consequence resulting (in my opinion) great risk and peril to the social consciousness (compartmentalization and splitting).

Freedom of the press is paramount and citizen journalism can be powerful in this regard; however, as Erich Fromm and others have made clear, Freedom exists within the boundaries of ‘From’ and ‘To’ (and the old school press establishment spent much effort defining them from multiple points of view including reason, logic, democratic principles, and I dare say Love of Truth - and to speak or act outside these boundaries is certainly possible (and is done with high frequency today) mindless, reckless, and in the case of Andrew Breitbart seemingly malicious.

By: joel

joel — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:16:56 +0000

Great insights, John, and I agree with you on most points. My degree is in journalism and we used to make a much bigger deal about ethics, checking facts, verifying sources, etc. in the world of print and broadcast than most online journalists seem to. I do miss that.

Perhaps I could have been clearer on one point. I agree there are legal implications for bloggers, but I also think many bloggers do not consider these implications when deciding what to post.