Time to regulate jounalism?

[Big War Bird]

Unfettered 'citizen journalism' too risky

By DAVID HAZINSKI

Published on: 12/13/07

You're beginning to get a lot more news ... from you.

It ranges from the CNN YouTube debates to political blogs to cellphone video of that sniper who opened fire at an Omaha Mall. These are all examples of so called "citizen journalism," the hot new extension of the news business where the audience becomes the reporter.


CURTIS COMPTON/Staff
David Hazinski, a former NBC correspondent,
is an associate professor of telecommunications and head
of broadcast news at the University of Georgia's Grady
College of Journalism.

Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

But unlike those other professions, journalism — at least in the United States — has never adopted uniform self-regulating standards. There are commonly accepted ethical principles — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principles is voluntary. There is no licensing, testing, mandatory education or boards of review. Most other professions do a poor job of self-regulation, but at least they have mechanisms to regulate themselves. Journalists do not.

So without any real standards, anyone has a right to declare himself or herself a journalist. Major media outlets also encourage it. Citizen journalism allows them to involve audiences, and it is a free source of information and video. But it is also ripe for abuse.

CNN's last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee. False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors. There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com.

Having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It's just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere.

Journalism organizations should head that off. Citizen reports can be a valuable addition to news and information flow with some protections:

• Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.

• They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning.

• Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified.

Journalists generally don't like any kind of standards or regulation. Many argue that standards could infringe on freedom of the press and journalism shouldn't be regulated.

But we have already seen the line between news and entertainment blur enough to destroy significant credibility. Continuing to do nothing as information flow changes will further erode it. Journalism organizations who choose to do nothing may soon find the line between professional and citizen journalism gone as well as the trust of their audiences.

Source

So what do you think?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Anyone who would suggest regulating journalism in a free society should be run down like the shite eating dogs they are. We have libel and slander laws already, that's all that is needed.

[JP226]

Anyone who would suggest regulating journalism in a free society should be run down like the shite eating dogs they are. We have libel and slander laws already, that's all that is needed.

We think we should regulate every other business, why not journalism?

[Ummagumma]

We think we should regulate every other business, why not journalism?

Do you really not get it?

The 'citizen surgeon' remark was quite humorous though, after all there is a direct comparison to be had between years of medical training, oaths, etc. and gaining a mediocre qualification in something that requires you to string a sentence together. Not even English Language or Journalism, it could be anything to become a Journalist...

I guess it could finally put the clamps on that annoyance they call 'freedom of speech' though, which could be handy. The people should only ever be told what you want them to hear.

[boofhead]

FFS who do journalists think they are? Professionals? Pffft. "Journalistic standards" doesn't take a 10 year university degree to learn. Takes about 2 minutes to read something.

Nobody has a monopoly on finding out information, or how it is spread to the masses. And most journalism is biased anyway.

They are nothing but self-glorified gimps.

*Reminds me of medical unions/associations condemning herbalists and other alternative medicine practitioners. They are just protecting their turf, and their incomes.

[Gelgoog]

the only regulation of journalism i can understand would be exposing those service men and women who's life might be at risk by doing so in the name of a "good scoop".

[Big War Bird]

Now do you understand what we right wingers are talking about when we complain about the media elite?

I can understand some of his concerns, with bigger outlets picking up and rerunning stories without fact checking, but weren't we lead to believe that media outlets were doing this already?

I think journalism is healthier now han it has been in a long time, perhaps ever. With the internet wide distribution of information is incredibly easy and cheap.

I suspect that this guy resents that people are now able fact check and respond to stories like never before.

[removeduser_487563287433]

We think we should regulate every other business, why not journalism?

But this isn't focusing on businesses, this is focusing on people. Bloggers, forum posters.

[JP226]

we're talking about the CNNs and the foxnew's and the NYT's of the world. Not the bloggers or the forum posters.

[Ummagumma]

I can understand some of his concerns, with bigger outlets picking up and rerunning stories without fact checking,

Yet he is prepared to draw parallels between that form of apparent 'professionalism' and medical practitioners.. hahaha.

I kind of like things how they are now, you know where you stand with all of your familiar news providers, and the conscientious amongst us verify that information. I suppose for the purposes of mass-media though, some form of forced balance to reports could be good - but it could be bad: if people start assuming that because it was printed it means it is inherently fair and balanced there is more chance for dangerous and misleading reports to hold sway over people. (In a similar vein to the hospital terror stories and your unfamiliarity with the Daily Mail.. you must have thought it was a fair report to cite it...)

[Medicus]

There's this "freedom of speech" thing that prevent regulation of journalism.

[Gaidin]

I personally think it'd be very amusing to see them try to stop the Internet.

[Gelgoog]

I personally think it'd be very amusing to see them try to stop the Internet.

all they have to do is contact Al Gore and ask him to restrict the internet.

[Last Roman]

We think we should regulate every other business, why not journalism?

because that would go against freedom of the press

[Kiljan Arslan]

Hmm you see there's this thing called the Bill of Rights you dhave heared of it havn't you?

[Big War Bird]

To be fair Hazinski is not calling for direct government regulation, but professional accrediting, sorta like a guild.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Would never work. It's a ludicrous idea, and whoever this guy is should be cock slapped.

[Ma'ahes]

As far as bloggers and "citizen" journalists are concerned, why even bother. However, something should be done when the majority of US newspapers are in the hands of a few corporations. If we truly want a free press, then get rid of the massive media buyouts that are slowly consolidating the press outlets. Anyone else get the feeling that we're about to have something close to trust breaking due to all this crap recently?

[Sidmen]

I believe we should regulate journalism. But not in the way the article writer wants. I feel that Major media sources should be regulated and when they produce false information they should be shut down. (possibly give them a few chances to get the kinks out). I mean, CNN has published obviously false information a number of times in the past few years, and they have the nerve to suggest that independent people need to be held to a higher standard.

[Kiljan Arslan]

To be fair Hazinski is not calling for direct government regulation, but professional accrediting, sorta like a guild.

UHHH You mean like those *******s at the Chamber of commerce? Those guys keep preventing Qwest from opening a cable service in my town because it would hurt Charter.