It’s not that different from the days when a tourist would capture the plane crash with a Super 8 and sell the images to an agency. The difference is that it’s more likely for a bystander to be better equipped and have direct access to getting the images out.

As to the pro-am argument that is obviously alive and well among some of the nervous dead-tree-and-cellulose naysayers here, I think if we’re ALL going to benefit from emerging technology like Qik/Flixwagon and the ever-present “witness,” the established “real” journalists need to quit putting us down and figure out how to mobilize us. There are more of us (schmucks) than there are of you (professional newsers), so we’re going to be where the story is more often than you. Be smart: get to know your local bloggers, invite us to your press club happy hours, read our stuff, vet our claims, and build up a relationship of trust with the handful you think are worth it. We’re just the 21st century version of your rolodex, use us. And HELP us. You’re the professional “officer class,” we’re the infantry called up in a time of need — to tell us where to point and shoot and then make the most of our distributed presence. (Or get out of the way. :-))

In Neal Stephenson’s sci-fi novel ‘Snowcrash’ he writes of people known as ‘Gargoyles,’ who wander about fully loaded with audio/video recording gear that is always running. Their hope is that they’ll come across something that they can upload onto the net and sell access to.

The only ones that can reliably be expected to get better are the ones who do this a lot, under time and other pressures (like bombs, I suppose).

Mind you, I do see the point. We have a great example up here in Canada, where a citizen taped the RCMP tasering a guy to death.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nv6jR-9Z4mw

Triggered a review of taser use. Caught the RCMP lying.

From his voice the guy who took this seemed to be a fair bit older than a teenager.

Personally I won’t be surprised if kids who are growing up using this gear are, on average, much better camera people and editors (leaving aside the question of journalism skills; verification, contextualisation etc).

The ability to work with multimedia is a new kind of literacy.

About editors, well, they probably do an important job but they also decide what we see and further more - what we don’t see.

With this, every corner of the world will be covered from now on 24/7, giving the picture from within. I’m still chilled when I think of the scene in that movie of those guys lying on the grass. WOW

i actually agree with both themes here. I’m rooting for the amateurs, but I’m often disappointed, in terms of getting any useful information. I’m especially disappointed when the first pictures of a breaking news event posted to Flickr are of … TV screens. Even in the much-discussed cellphone video of the Virginia Tech shooting, it was impossible to tell what was going on. It was excellent radio — hear the shots — but not useful information.

Zapruder moments will be almost as rare as before. More often, the first reports will serve only to show “Dude, I was this close …” taken from outside the police tape on the periphery, with everyone else who has been moved away from the scene.

The role of the journalist is to report on what people do and say. If everyone in the world is publishing, then the role of the journalist will be to report on what people do and say.

The guy also took videos of the damages after the attack: http://www.flixwagon.com/claire