The “citizen journalism” movement constitutes an ill-fated attempt to take a huge step backward for a civilization that already has a well-established free and professional press. It would constitute a step forward in, say, Burma — that’s an instance where the hackneyed Thomas Payne comparison might actually apply.

As a consumer of news, I absolutely insist that it be accurate, reliable, fair, credible, relevant and useful. “Citizen journalism” does not provide that, and I don’t see even the slimmest prospect that it ever could.

Sure, I take part in “crowdsourcing.” It works great for some things, like when I buy a new model of Pocket PC and exchange information with peers in an online forum about the ins and outs of the device, which hacks and tweaks to try, etc. It works because the information is readily testable and verifiable. That’s also why the open-source model works for software development. But journalism is clearly not the same. I can’t verify every bit of news that I consume, so in large part I have to be able to rely on the credibility, reputation and professionalism of the news outlet that is conveying that information. If some “citizen” “reports” something, I have no reason to believe it until professional journalists have interviewed that “citizen” and investigated the “report.” If self-styled amateur journalists want to submit photos and eyewitness accounts, fine, but this stuff still needs to be investigated, filtered, verified and edited in accordance with established journalistic standards. The amateur should be viewed as a source, not as a journalist.

Anyway, bravo to Bill Keller as always. A great many of us appreciate his efforts. The mindset that Bill was alluding to, even if he was mistaken in directly linking Jeff to that mindset, is all too real. Whatever the case, this was a small point in Bill’s speech and should not be allowed to distract from the rest of his message.

Open question.

That seems more like your definition of pro-am journalism.

I still don’t think Jarvis can say that his rather broad and untested ideas about some kind of journalism involving blogs have been grossly mischaracterized. To me, what he vehemently insists must be called “networked journalism” is in spirit pretty much the same as what one could describe as “citizen journalism.”

Tom,

As I was saying, the opposing side isn’t backing up their claims either (Kara is a good example) so they appear to be guilty of the same sin… and are thus equally responsible for the lack of actual debate.

Delia

P.S. It seems to be a silly game of lets see who can yell louder and can get more of “their friends” to yell along with them… D.

In networked journalism, the public can get involved in a story before it is reported, contributing facts, questions, and suggestions. The journalists can rely on the public to help report the story; we’ll see more and more of that, I trust. The journalists can and should link to other work on the same story, to source material, and perhaps blog posts from the sources (see: Mark Cuban). After the story is published — online, in print, wherever — the public can continue to contribute corrections, questions, facts, and perspective … not to mention promotion via links. I hope this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as journalists realize that they are less the manufacturers of news than the moderators of conversations that get to the news.

journalists can rely on the public to help report the story
the public can continue to contribute corrections, questions, facts, and perspective
(journalists are) moderators of conversations that get to the news