According to my friend, what has happened differs from the prediction of wide-spread “citizen photo-journalism.” It (citizen photography) is certainly wide-spread, but its effects were less dramatic: it drove poorer-quality professionals from the business because the general public not only had more options but were better educated from having tried to use the fancier equipment; it upped the “bar” for professionals because they didn’t get work just because they had expensive equipment irrespective of their talent or work ethic or pricing; it adjusted pricing a bit since there were a new group of competitors (”my brother has a great camera and takes a lot of pictures”).

But, according to my friend, there was another effect that has really helped his business grow, and that is the fact that a significant portion of the market has tried the new equipment, tried using the “locals” already on payroll and these people have discoved that equipment is not the difference — great professionals have a skill that is not widely available in the general public. As a result, this portion of the general market place has a great appreciation for his ability, values more highly the fact that it isn’t just a matter of getting fancy equipment, and they are more willing to pay for this quality than before. His business has actually increased, partly due to lower-quality (lower-priced) photographers being eliminated from the market and partly due to the fact that he is more than just the owner of great equipment.

Similarly, low-quality journalism that existed (for pay) in the past simply because they had the equipment, will continue to be eliminated from the market-place and high-quality journalists will be appreciated more as it becomes clearer that even though I have the option to read from 1000 times more writers on the web, it has made me realize what a truly gimlet eye is possessed by some journalists — the availability of raw news and many commentators has increased my appreciation for the skills of the truly gifted.

Thanks for your continuing commentary on these areas.

Your definition also opens up a huge Pandora’s Box, since by your own admission, any ugly, vile or disgusting act captured on video, audio or text can be considered “news served raw”. Kiddie porn is certainly a newsworthy topic in 2007 America, given its widespread availability on the net. Would graphic video depictions of kiddie porn on a free website fit your definition of “news served raw”?

It is good for journalism as a whole to have the raw news available to the public. It makes the profession more rigorous and competitive. Raw news is a fact and it’s not going away, but we are still going to need dedicated experts to explain and contextualise the news. Simple specialization of labour, that’s all.

All this journalistic self-congratulation over how wonderful we are will last another year or two at the most. Mr. Jenkin’s “disciplined, rule-bound, edited news gatherer” is dead. He was a cog in an old production process. Like air tubes and linotype machines, objectivity, the two sources rule and allied reporting styles were employed because they were a good way of doing business. They made newsrooms more efficient. That is no longer true.

I wonder how many of the folks traveling with the White House honestly think of themselves as real journalists? Likely every last one of ‘em, but the image, burned into my small mind at least, of President Bush speaking to the nation in front of New Orleans’ Jackson Square just after Katrina, all lit up like he was at freakin’ Disney World, makes me think of a White House press corps made up not of journalists, but of lighting grips and propagandizers. And we haven’t even touched on the entire Mission Accomplished “set piece.”

“So journalists are no longer here to sanitize the news for our protection.” Sure, and I’m Emma Goldman.