Citizen Journalism

Any citizen journalist out there? How do you approach your work and where do you share? Stories? Do you feel

you should be afforded the same respect as any other photojournalist working for a local or regional paper? Is

this the right forum?

Just listening to a live feed from St. Paul about the latest RNC debate probs and wondering if this kind of stuff

affects any of you.

Personally I'd like to find out how the average "citizen journalist" deals with the fact that they usually have

little to no training on accuracy and fairness, libel and slander, and the principles of journalistic morals,

ethics and integrity. Most of them, not surprisingly, have never heard of the Associated Press Stylebook. I've

seen so-called "citizen journalist" websites that were little more than propaganda

clearinghouses. Just how reliable is "citizen journalism" without trained (and paid) editing and fact-checking?

Those are interesting questions, El Fang. I often wonder the same things about the professional journalist,

especially the integrity aspect. I believe that you can find most of the information that is in the AP book free

on the web though, so I am not to sure what it would matter if a citizen journalist had ever heard of it. Also;

the editing I see in many papers has much to be desired.

 

If a citizen journalist is covering an event like the RNC and is shooting stills or video, I don't see much

difference as long as there is some understanding of the legal landscape, i.e.; where you can stand and shoot in

a public place. The major difference, I would suppose, is in the publishing, as you eluded to.

<i>I often wonder the same things about the professional journalist, especially the integrity aspect.</i>

 

<p>Well obviously the "professional" circles aren't immune to these sorts of problems, as evidenced by recent

high-profile cases of photo-doctoring and resultant firings at the New York Times, for example. However, in the

case of "mainstream media" there is usually a system of checks and balances in place (however flawed) to minimize

these sorts of problems. The first checkpoint of that system is the training professional journalists and

photojournalists have in what's OK to do, and what's not. "Citizen journalists" by definition don't have that

sort of training, and the places that accept pictures and/or stories from them usually don't have the budget for

professional fact checkers and editors.</p>

 

<p><i>I believe that you can find most of the information that is in the AP book free on the web though, so I am

not to sure what it would matter if a citizen journalist had ever heard of it.</i></p>

<p>Sure, but would the average "citizen journalist" even be aware of the information or bothered to look for it

and learn it?</p>

 

<p><i>Also; the editing I see in many papers has much to be desired.</i></p>

<p>Sure, but at least it's there.</p>

 

<p><i>If a citizen journalist is covering an event like the RNC and is shooting stills or video, I don't see much

difference as long as there is some understanding of the legal landscape, i.e.; where you can stand and shoot in

a public place. The major difference, I would suppose, is in the publishing, as you eluded to.</i></p>

 

<p>The fair and accurate reporting of news involves much, much more than just knowing where to stand and shoot in

a public place. To illustrate, I'll use an example that is currently a hot topic of discussion in editorial

photography circles at the moment: <a href="http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html"

target="_blank">How Jill Greenberg Really Feels About John McCain</a>. For the "Too Long, Didn't Read" crowd, the

issue at hand is how freelance photographer (and self-described "hard core Democrat") Jill Greenberg took on an

assignment from a magazine to photograph the Republican presidential nominee, and used the shoot as an

opportunity to voice her own political opinions (to put it lightly). OK, granted, Greenberg is not a

photojournalist. However, if you sent her to cover the DNC and RNC as a photographer, knowing her attitudes, I

think you'd be able to predict what kind of pictures will come from each event. This is an extreme example, but

it shows the problems raised when a news event is covered by someone (Greenburg, "citizen journalist," or

whomever) with no training or regard for fair and accurate reporting.</p>

 

<p>I'm aware that there is a big difference between the willful malicious portrayal of something or someone you

don't like versus doing something because you just don't know any better. But in the end, the problem is the same

- misleading the public that is expecting to be informed in as fair and accurate a way as possible.</p>

 

<p>Again, I'm not saying that mainstream media is the epitome of fair and accurate reporting. With stupid BS like

newspapers "endorsing" political candidates, and the media's traditional reliance on advertising revenue (how do

you think they'd treat a negative story on one of their big advertising clients?) as I said before, mainstream

media is far from being problem-free. However, "citizen journalism," with its almost complete lack of checks and

balances, presents a whole set of problems of its own.</p>

<p>In the end, I'm not 100% sure what the solution is.</p>

Maybe it's the word "journalist" that gives some people trouble. I think the whole point of citizen journalism is to bring another perspective to the table. What they do is really more like documentary work, which is expected to have a point of view.

 

They are not outside of a check and balance system, they are part of it. Some get the stories that news services cannot, may not, or will not cover. They act as a check against big media compliance to the party line, and a balance against overworked, downsized newsrooms.

 

People that get their news only from TimeWarner, or only from Fox, or only from Tribune, or only from Huffington Post, or only from YouTube, get what they deserve. But to have YouTube video of what happened in Minneapolis a couple of weeks back helps to inform us, IMO, better than the first four on that list alone.

Hello Jay B. Stevens, citizen (amateurs) journalist are given the same protection under the laws of the United States as professional

journalists. Can't speak for countries like the UK that limited have freedom of the press.

 

Jay as in all endeavors respect is earned, not given. You have to earn your bones, nothing is free in life. Realize that the average Daily

Newspaper reporter or photojournalist has 4 or more years of college a couple of internships. Realize most journalistic institutions in the U.S.

have respect and earned reputations, so why would a person with a blog get the same access as established institution. It goes back to

earning your bones. As for the editing papers has much to be desired. Your right, after all your average daily journalist spend about 4-6

gathering info for stories have maybe 2-3 hours to turn out 2-3 stories daily. So how hard is it to be a Monday morning quarterback? To be

fair I am not a writer, I work for a living I am a photographer/photojournalist. I worked for few of the major chains. I am now an independent

contractor.

 

I get into same events as the big boys. Why? Because I earned my bones and I know who to call and the procedures to cover an event. Just

because you call yourself a journalist does not mean you are one. There is no free lunch out there. If you want the same respect earn it. It is

really that simple.<div></div>

<i>Maybe it's the word "journalist" that gives some people trouble. I think the whole point of citizen journalism is to bring another perspective to the table. What they do is really more like documentary work, which is expected to have a point of view.</i>

<p>Not the whole point - just part of it. The other part is to cover stories ignored by mainstream media. So when you have "citizen journalism" as the sole source of information on such overlooked stories, how reliable is it? And having a point of view is perfectly fine, because it is accepted even in professional circles that there really isn't any such thing as completely objective journalism. However, the trained reporter/photographer can make an effort to be fair and accurate, even if total objectivity is impossible.</p>

 

<p><i>They are not outside of a check and balance system, they are part of it. Some get the stories that news services cannot, may not, or will not cover. They act as a check against big media compliance to the party line, and a balance against overworked, downsized newsrooms.</i></p>

 

<p>That's a separate check and balance you're talking about. I'm talking about the checks and balances that prevent things like errors of fact and libelous statements from making it to press on any given story, things that are looked for specifically by a copy editor. What you're saying - that citizen journalism can be an effective counterweight to mainstream media - is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but only if citizen journalism can be counted upon as a reliable source of information. And without those internal checks and balances I was talking about, it often cannot be trusted.</p>

Actually, journalism is one of those fields that's pretty much open to anyone. You don't HAVE to go to college. You can learn on the job at small papers and move up. I go back to the first amendment question. This is designed to give everyone a right to report or comment on what they want. Getting into events with the "big boys" doesn't make you a journalist. What makes a person a journalist is that they cover things that are happening in the community, big or small. And please ... I've seen some of the most non-professional, Indymedia types at events like UN summits. I've seen photographers with little point and shoot Nikons at internationally televised awards ceremonies.

 

Aside from that, I've found that most independent journalists have axes to grind. I like some of the stories that come out on narconews, for example, but there's an obvious bias. These days, though, with the head of AP fishing for a job with McCain, who's to say which "organization" is more biased?

<i>Actually, journalism is one of those fields that's pretty much open to anyone. You don't HAVE to go to

college. You can learn on the job at small papers and move up.</i>

<p>This is not the entirety of it; most papers, even the small ones (but not all) require their interns to be

concurrently enrolled in journalism or communications courses. Journalism 101 is where most students first learn

about bias and libel, concepts the average "citizen journalist" usually doesn't know a whole lot about. Most

papers would not want to be sued because of a student intern's neglect of these issues. Copy editors are human

and can't possibly catch every mistake or potentially libelous statement. As I mentioned, the first checkpoint of

the checks and balances lies with a proper trained journalist.</p>

 

<p><i>What makes a person a journalist is that they cover things that are happening in the community, big or

small.</i></p>

<p>...with intention of doing the greater good of informing the general public of the facts in as fair and

accurate a way as possible. Anything less and it's not journalism.</p>

 

<p><i>Aside from that, I've found that most independent journalists have axes to grind. I like some of the

stories that come out on narconews, for example, but there's an obvious bias. These days, though, with the head

of AP fishing for a job with McCain, who's to say which "organization" is more biased?</i></p>

 

<p>Good point, but neither I nor anyone else claimed that one was necessarily more biased as an absolute. I'm

just saying that the *potential* for bias is much greater in the system in which the reporters a) lack formal

training; b) have nobody to answer to, i.e. cannot be fired and don't have a salary or reputation at stake; and

c) write stories that go to press without copy editing or fact checking.</p>

No, you do not need college but, look at any daily you will vast majority of the journalist do. Even at a weekly the vast majority have college. I

loved and still love community journalism but, it is a collapsing market. The reality is we could be in the near future, looking at newsroom with

only a few editors with lists of independent contractors.

 

One major reason is economic, it is cheaper to maintain a small number of employees, the other is the technology. You do not need major

institution to supply the tech to publish and edit images and stories when average laptop is more than capable.

 

The bad thing is the community newspaper training grounds for journalists is decreasing. Even if they have a college background it is harder

and harder for them to get practical experience. I was listening to an interview with a National Geographic editor they finding it more difficult to

hire because there are less community newspaper, which was one of their major resources. In my area I have seen 6 out of 10 papers shut

down, and it does not look any better in the near future.

 

As far as point in shoots just at the sidelines or endzones of an NFL game you will see lots of point and shoots in action but that is normal. But

again if you want to get into major venues on a regular basis you need to earn the respect and reputation.

Given my doubts regarding "citizen journalism" I thought I should add the disclaimer: I'm referring to the

coverage of sensitive issues like war, politics, abortion... things of that nature. A citizen doing a community

story on, say, the farmer's market on Saturday would hardly be the cause for an up-in-arms debate over bias and

libel.

Thank you all for your comments, you have been most enlightening.

"Citizen Journalist" is doublespeak for "paper too cheap to hire professionals".

I was a newspaper photographer for seven years after I retired from my profession. It was done on a whim and turned into a

business that I expanded to weddings and the like. .I did this without much formal training but wound up with a decent cash flow.

In my former life I did do some articles for aviation safety publications. However, I was also told by a professor of journalism that

I would never get anywhere as a writer. Somebody picked up on one of my class assignments for that guy and asked me to do

a column which lasted for several years despite my journalism teacher's rejecting me. The column, and some editorials that I

did for the paper that I took pictures for were what I called journalism. I call what I did with my cameras photography. I didn't get

paid much. I loved doing sports and photographed statewide. Sometimes I did an article for the paper and accompanied it with

my own photos. I called that photojournalism. As a photographer, I just shot what my editor told me to shoot except for an

occasional attempt to publish an artsy photograph in the paper. I did some editorial photography by using harsh, direct flash for

unflattering photos (kind of like Greenberg) of local pols. But mostly what I shot was car wrecks, quilting circles, grip and grins,

perps, fairs, the Rotary or Kiwanis stuff and high school athletics. There ain't much money in it. I did some citizen journalism

recently when a car ran into my house. I just told the reporter there that I could do it better than he could and he agreed. That

picture went above the fold on the front page of the local paper. If your pictures are interesting you can get them published for

nothing but I liked getting paid for what I did. Newspaper pictures are mostly very mundane and just have to meet minimum quality standards. If

somebody runs

into my house again maybe I will do more citizen, ahem, journalism. I don't think that there was much complexity in all this. A lot

of it was fun. I learned, at the paper to pose groups quickly, to get my pictures rapidly, and at the time we did our own

processing just before we went to digital. Also, not to block up shadows as it makes pictures look muddy in the paper. For

a weekly, with sports and everything else, I shot about seven rolls of 36 for each edition so we would have something to choose

from. With digital, it is a lot easier because you can shoot as much as you want. I worked with and knew a lot of other newspaper

photographers from various papers. Not many of them had a great amount of formal training. They, however, produced good,

usable pictures that complimented what the reporters were doing in their articles. It is not technically or artistically demanding

work. What pleases editors is not what pleases art critics nor does it have a high pixel count on the printed page. It deals with

catching some event that perishes with the days news. However, where the photographers shine is in catching the expression on

a local HS footballer and he catches a pass going across the goal line. My editor wanted a face and a ball or puck in every

sports pictures save wrestling. It is in catching the sullen, frightened face of a killer on a perp walk; it is establishing some soft

communication with a woman you are photographing on her hundredth birthday; etc. Really good newspaper photographers

do this instinctively in my humble opinion. I have a friend on the Washington times that got there because she was seen by the Times in a local

weekly shopper. Lot's of journalists have come up this way. That's where, IMO, you learn the trade. I liked what I did while it lasted.

Splendid, Dick. I hope your message encourages others to jump in and have some fun.

By the way I established a lot of lasting friendships with reporters, my editor, and some other photographers. One of

the reporters has published seven books, and used to edit Playboy in Australia. He ultimately founded a small town

paper which is still going but he recently sold it. Big sucker that I am, I did some free photography for him as the paper

was getting started. There are some amazingly good writers on small town papers from my observations. Most of them

young and on their way up. The way you learn the ethics of the trade is getting crap from your editor when you don't get

it right and your work goes in the trash. I soon got over any silly ideas that I had. Now, from having had my own photo

business, having good equipment and the latest version of photoshop I can make people look good. When I was

shooting pols in dimly lit meeting rooms i did not purposely make them look bad after direct flash, I just never tried to

make them look good.

This just in: <a href="http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=131391" target="_blank">CBS Gets a Rude Lesson in Citizen Journalism</a>

And sometimes even <a href="http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/METRO/810020448" target="_blank">professional media can do the right thing</a>.

<a href="http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/10/cnn-citizen-jou.html" target="_blank">'Citizen Journalist' Could Face Prison for Fake Jobs Story</a>