observing the CITIZEN JOURNALIST in the wild
Since I have a big mouth, even after 1,562 days of mouthing off on this blog, I’m going to insert myself into a three-way on the nature of journalism and of blogging.
First, Dan of Gone Mild, which frankly hadn’t floated my boat until this post:
I am not a journalist. I admire journalists and appreciate their work - and get angry when they do it poorly. Their insistence on getting to primary facts and checking them out goes miles beyond what I and most bloggers do most of the time, which is to find something on the internet and run with it if it sounds right.
Bloggers who take themselves seriously and consider themselves “citizen journalists” need a reality check. Unless you’re doing the ground level development of sources and documentation, you are playing at journalism. The phone call I received yesterday was a friendly reminder that real journalists work on an entirely different level.
Second is Tony, a long-time supporter of the big e along with a lot of area bloggers:
But the notion that there is a difference between the written word in one arena vs. any other is really just [an] excuse to stop thinking, to stop being critical. I’ve read tons of excellent local blog posts that have provided more valuable first hand information than could ever be provided by our daily paper. And let’s not forget that there is only one major daily paper in this town [The Kansas City Star -- ed.] that would love everyone to think they have a monopoly on facts as well as distribution, government sources and press releases.
The attitude that something has greater credibility because it was published by a corporate entity is the reason that so many people in this town are so poorly informed or don’t even pay much attention to the news at all.
Finally we have another friend of evolution, “emaw_kc”, in Dan’s comment section:
Sorry Dan, but I respectfully disagree. I think we should all strive to be as responsible as possible whether we’re journalists or not.
Is it possible to agree with all three of them and not be stark raving mad?
Dan is right. Most bloggers cannot — and should not — be considered true journalists. I certainly don’t consider myself one, despite my intent to participate in a “citizen journalism” forum put on by my local outlet, the World Company. Fully 95% of the time I use the words “citizen journalist” it’s as a joke. Blogging is a pretty egotistical exercise, and it’s pretty easy to get caught up in the heady rush of it all. Get a hundred unique visitors a day and a name-check in the local paper, and all of a sudden a blogger starts to think he’s somebody. The typical, hardworking, honest journalist in my local paper has put a lot more work into his stories then any of us middle-to-lower-tier bloggers have into most of our posts.
Tony is right. Drawing a paycheck from the local journalism outlet does not make one a journalist. There are enough partisan hacks — no matter your persuasion — who claim the mantle of “journalist” that make me cast a jaundiced eye toward the profession. (As I’ve said, the closer you get in the levels of journalism to your local community, the more likely you are to find mostly honest actors. I’ve also said that I believe those that are partisan tend to lean one way.) He’s also right in another sense: It falls to us — who are in most cases willing consumers of that media — to pay attention. Many of us don’t. The fact that most journalists put a lot of work and time into making sure their stories are based on verifiable facts does not preclude someone who is not a traditional journalist from doing the same.
“emaw_kc” is right — sort of. Bloggers should be responsible. Sure, a blogger could just post any old thing on his site; he could just toe the Party Line™ with every post — some do, and some of those blogs get a lot of traffic. “A lot of traffic” does not equal “taken seriously”, however. I don’t feel I owe it to anyone to be responsible, however; I try to be responsible because I think it’s right. Whatever traffic I get as a result will come and go.
The truth is, many honest journalists have probably worked their whole careers waiting for the day (well, maybe nothing that dramatic) when their readers pick apart their work, dissecting the information and looking at the facts for themselves, perhaps caring about their domains a little bit more today then they had yesterday. The personal nature of politics today makes it that much harder to determine fact from falsehood, and as Tony hinted at, has sent us scrambling for our comfort zones.
But, sometimes, the facts are uncomfortable.
And I’ll second something else Tony said: A little distrust here and there is not a bad thing.
09.27.2006 @ 20:10
I think where Dan went wrong in his original post was when he presented the information as fact. A simple qualifier (”reportedly” “supposedly”) would have been more honest and responsible on his part.
I guess my point is that not being a journailst shoul
But then, I wasn’t raised in Missouri
09.27.2006 @ 20:12
Not sure what happened there… allow me to correct:
“I guess my point is that not being a journalist shouldn’t be a license to be irresponsible.”
09.27.2006 @ 21:15
That’s sort of the flip side of what Tony said in his post: one is more likely to seek out one’s own tribe, but one is also more likely to run with information that skewers someone in the other tribe.
Your point is well-taken, though.
09.28.2006 @ 09:02
As somebody who sits on both sides, here’s my two cents:
Strictly as a legal matter, I don’t think the courts would recognize a difference between blogging and other media — though I’m not sure this has actually been tested. If you’re publishing (and you are) and you’ve got those 100 hits a day, you’re media.
Which means that you’re probably subject to all the same libel and slander laws that apply to the Journal-World or the KC Star; the standard for proving libel or slander in court is tougher if you’re a public figure like Kris Kobach — but big media organizations have libel insurance AND money to pay lawyers in the event of such suits. I mean no disrespect to suggest that Dan, Emaw, Tony or anybody else in the Kansas-Kansas City blogosphere probably don’t possess the same resources as bigger media companies, in that regard.
That’s not to say that blogs shouldn’t do much of what they do; but when they venture into original reporting of a sort — and that, it appears to me, is what Dan was doing — then I’d urge all of you to do it, but to do it cautiously. For your own sake.
09.28.2006 @ 18:00
My blog doesn’t float your boat??! Well, I’m crushed . . .
I agree with everything else you say, though. I never argued in favor of irresponsibility, and the only factual statement I made that is questionable is that Kobach is scheduled to teach Immigration Law (and he most likely is, but the documentary proof isn’t out yet). I’m not too worried about a libel suit.
09.28.2006 @ 18:54
Dan: I wasn’t trying to suggest you’d committed libel — being factually incorrect about curricula, I think, comes nowhere close — only noting that, were a blogger to print something libelous, “I’m a blogger!” probably wouldn’t be seen as a defense.
That being part of a broader point that, well, y’all is media now. It’s not the same as what came before, yes, but that doesn’t make this any less true.