« Too Much High Tech | Main | Reporting Versus Stenography »
December 13, 2007
Should News Orgs "Regulate" Citizen Journalism?
Let's review the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In case you're not aware of this--and apparently Professor David Hazinski of the University of Georgia is not--the First Amendment is a statement of rights enjoyed by individual Americans. The word "press" does not refer to the commercial institution of journalism as we understand it today. It is a simple metaphor indicating the product of a machine that Americans (individually or through sundry associations) have the right to publish and distribute to their fellow Americans.
Journalists have First Amendment rights because they are citizens of the United States, not because they are journalists.
Professor Hazinski is worried about citizens practicing journalism for themselves--exactly what citizens did during the colonial and revolutionary periods of American history. He's so worried that he's willing to entertain the idea that the professional institution of journalism should regulate citizen journalism--something like herding cats, I suppose. From his column in the Atlanta Journal- Constitution:
Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.
Consider that what he's really arguing for is professional journalists doing a proper job of editing (in all its understandings) of citizens' submissions to commercial news products. I think it's painfully obvious that a news organization needs to treat citizen journalism in the way it should treat its own journalism--with all the care that the ethical practice of the craft demands.
What's annoying about Hazinski's column is that he hasn't moved beyond the oh-so-typical early arguments about the dangers of citizen journalism. He ends up worrying that citizens will practice journalism in exactly the same shoddy manner that too many professionals already practice the craft.
Deception? Got it in the pro product. Poor ethics? Ditto. Fraud of all kinds? Yeppers.
Here's an idea for Hazinski to consider: In addition to the technology that makes the mass distribution of information cheap and easy, perhaps another driving force behind citizen journalism is the poor job citizens think the pros are doing.
Toward the end of Hazinski's column, he offers this corrective:
Citizen reports can be a valuable addition to news and information flow with some protections:
• Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.
• They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning.
• Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified.
While I'm uncomfortable with the concept of a school "certifying" journalists of any kind (for what should be obvious Constitutional reasons), these points are good advice for any news organization involved in publishing citizens' contributions. And I'll certainly look into the possibility of offering a cit-j class at Missouri State.
Posted by acline at December 13, 2007 9:06 AM | | Spotlight