Joe Shmo, Journalist?
It looks like The Anchoress wasn't the only advocate of citizen journalism who found last week's "Outside Voices" commentary by Samuel Freedman worthy of a response. Dan Gillmor, editor of the citizen journalism blog, Bayosphere, takes issue with many of Freedman's points in this post:
I'm a fairly prominent proponent of citizen journalism, and I do agree it's part of a wider democratization. But far from seeing it as a "shattering of the power of the unelected elite" and a total circumvention of the professionals, I've repeatedly said this is about expanding the number of voices. I wouldn't mind shattering the arrogance that Freedman's essay exemplifies, but one of my goals is to spread and share the power for everyone's benefit.Terry Heaton lodged similar complaints at his blog:
These are all examples of Media 1.0 missing the point that Media 2.0 is really all about opportunity. The problem is that if you're too busy defending your old model, you'll never see what's coming as the land of opportunity; you'll only be able to see things that are getting in your way -- keeping you from (usually) the profitability you used to know.John Temple, the editor, president and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News addressed Freedman's piece on his blog:
I just wish [Freedman] and others would move beyond the idea that citizens participating in the creation of content means an erosion of journalism standards. In my view, the addition of more voices to the conversation in our society is a plus and the angst of journalists is misplaced.It's a discussion that will likely be coming up a lot as concepts like citizen journalism continue to change the landscape of what it means to be a "journalist." For example, while she isn't writing about his "Outside Voices," column, The New Republic's Michelle Cottle this week forwards an argument related to Freedman's, and (welcomes the inevitable "clackety-clack-clack of angry e-mails" that she already hears being composed in response.) Cottle addresses the issue by way of the Wisconsin State Journal's recent decision to invite readers to vote online to determine what stories will appear on the next day's front page. "How democratic. How market-oriented. How customer-responsive. How utterly moronic," writes Cottle. (Please read her whole article before you start clakety-clacking.) Acknowledging that she can see the benefit of such moves toward interaction and reader feedback, Cottle gets to the point: "…determining what merits serious, front-page coverage really should be left to people whose careers have been in the service of the news." Part of the profession of being a news editor, writes Cottle is making such judgments about what should appear on the front page. She continues:
"And make no mistake. No matter how half-assed or silly it may at times seem from the outside, journalism is a real, grown-up profession in which, as with nearly every other job on the planet, experience and acquired skill matter. While that may sound obvious, I'm convinced that a sizeable chunk of the public can't quite get past its belief that any idiot can be a journalist because, by and large, it doesn't require the same sort of specialized or technical knowledge as being a doctor, chemical engineer, or CPA.It's a valid concern – for journalists and their audiences. While questions of news judgment are certainly subjective, does that mean anyone can make them? Is a news editor a better judge of what's newsworthy than any other shmo? Does letting Joe Shmo do the work that has traditionally been within the purview of a news editor undermine the profession? Or, are the news judgments of "citizen journalists" simply another set of voices that deserve an outlet?