Reliable Sources In The Age Of YouTube

By: Hillary Profita
Topics: Media Issues

(AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

Much of YouTube's success has burgeoned from circulating videos of a more humorous nature (take the substantial viewership of Connie Chung's recent rendition of "Thanks For The Memories" during the final installment of her now defunct MSNBC program, for example.) But, as we noted earlier this week, the site is also fast becoming a worthwhile compendium of news reports and video commentaries about the conflict in Israel and Lebanon. The Washington Post's Sara Kehaulani Goo today takes a more detailed look at the site's success on that front, while raising some of the issues that are often associated with such efforts in citizen journalism. "Although the amateur videos provide an appealingly intimate account of what's happening on the ground," writes Goo, "it can be difficult to determine authenticity. The videos are often posted under pseudonyms or screen names that do not contain e-mail addresses."

It's a question that surrounds much of the information now readily available on the Web -- it's raw, intense, but is it authentic? Reliable? Of course, outlets like YouTube aren't – and do not purport to be – news outlets. And the site is up front about noting that it doesn't monitor video content, "though it prohibits videos that are violent," writes Goo.

In that sense, video clips like these certainly expand the landscape, but they have their limitations. One veteran journalist noted his concerns about the value of the "new Internet world" in an interview published in today's USA Today. NPR analyst Daniel Schorr told Peter Johnson that the unfiltered nature of the new media like means fewer stories will be suppressed since "you can always have a blogger who gets the story out." On the other hand, "what we have here is a medium in which there is no publisher, no editor, no anything. It's just you and a little machine and you can make history. I find that scary. Nobody should get into print or on the air without some kind of editor. I have an institutional belief that nobody can be above having a good editor."

6 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by alphaa10-2009 July 26, 2006 11:12 AM EDT: A good editor can help a good writer become even better. Almost any of the posts here prove the point about the value of an editor-- my own included. Editors help writers do what they do best, like a teacher and taskmaster combined. Editors are communications specialists on a industrial scale, whether video or text. Anyone who doubts the value of a good editor should read the RAW copy from the AP once in a while. If you read carefully through the more dificult stories, you will find word processing butchery-- whole sentences misplaced, substitution of a homonym for the correct word ("the tenants of a philosophy"), and on and on. Editors did not invent themselves, but were born of necessity and readers angry enough to demand better quality. Editors can be creative, too. It takes an intuitive sense of what the writer is trying to say in order to shape each sentence into its full potential. Some editors have a natural gift, others must work at it, but all editors understand theirs is a thankless lot. Writers tend to dismiss them as necessary evils, and most of their readers haven't even a glimpse of how the raw copy actually looked before editing. That said, many writers appreciate the synergy that can develop with an astute editor.; Reply to this comment


by joycewest July 25, 2006 8:03 PM EDT: Ouch! How these barbed comments sting this former copy editor to the very depths of her nitpicky heart! Some writers may enjoy life without the safety net of an editor looking over their shoulders, but I prefer the second set of eyes, to catch silly typos, grammatical errors and simply the stuff that doesn't make sense and should be double-checked. I wish I had an editor now. I don't know of any good writers who didn't appreciate a good editor.; Reply to this comment


by jtdavies3 July 25, 2006 7:27 PM EDT: So what does Daniel Schorr say about Nic Robertson's fan letter to Hezbolla? http://newsbusters.org/node/6552; Reply to this comment


by simminch July 25, 2006 6:54 PM EDT: Daniel Schorr is still alive?; Reply to this comment


by k-sozer July 25, 2006 5:32 PM EDT: The idea that everyone needs an editor is just silly. Sure, some people do, but many others don't. We don't need editors to serve as judges of what is and isn't newsworthy, what we need them for is to spot and remove Jayson Blairs, and stories that are based upon fabricated evidence (Rathergate, for example). You sound like you are just defending your institutional prerogatives. Do you have an editor for this blog? I certainly hope not. Plus, I agree with the above poster that some editors are idiots.; Reply to this comment


by jaguar0 July 25, 2006 4:00 PM EDT: In regarded to Daniel Schorr, comments, about nobody can be above having a good editor> It has been my experience with editors, that MOST EDITORS, DO NOT KNOW THEIR %@#(now PE you aloud to say donkey's behinds, at least once on nighttime tv) FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND, about good editing> An editor, is nothing more then someone who could not hack it as a writer?; Reply to this comment