Have you heard of citizen's journalism before? Leonard Pitts wrote an interesting article on it today. Pitts says:
quote:
"Citizen journalism," we are told, is supposed to democratize all that, the tools of new technology making each of us a journalist unto him or herself. It is a mark of the low regard in which journalism is held that that load of bull pucky ever passed as wisdom. If some guy had a wrench, would that make him a citizen mechanic? If some woman flashed a toy badge, would you call her a citizen police officer? Would you trust your health to a citizen doctor just because he produced a syringe?
Of course not. But every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a blog is a "citizen journalist."
To a point I agree with him. He says this about journalists:
quote:
Journalism is hours on the phone nailing down the facts or pleading for the interview.
Journalism is obsessing over nit-picky questions of fairness and context.
Journalism is trying to get the story and get it right.
Do you think this always happens? I am finding journalists to be more and more biased, and maybe that's why this citizen's journalism is developing. Thoughts?
I am finding journalists to be more and more biased
I don't think so. There have always been biased journalists, but I don't think the numbers have gone up. I don't believe journalistic standards have necessarily gone down in other ways, either. There will always be a few lazy people who will put out a story without checking their facts properly, or ones who make basic errors in reporting, often because they don't understand the matter themselves.
However, bloggers aren't bound by the some constraints as journalists, and it is very easy for a biased, error-strewn, or downright wrong report to appear and be repeated throughout the blogosphere in next to no time. Sometimes "reputable" journalists will take up and pass on the meme, lending it a spurious air of authenticity.
One thing that has changed is that the newspapers, in an attempt to save money, have cut down on "back-office" staff - subeditors*, fact-checkers, and the like - which means that journalists' copy is less closely checked before publication, meaning that bias (even if inadvertent) and error can creep in. This is particularly true of the online editions of newspapers.
*Copy editors in the USA, I believe.This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I don't think so. There have always been biased journalists, but I don't think the numbers have gone up.
It's hard to prove, I guess, but I just find more prejudice these days in reporting. Just today I was listening to the BBC and the American news about the release of September's economic report (on NPR). They used the same statistics. However, the BBC was much more negative about the report than the U.S. reporters. I'm just saying...they were the same statistics!
You are right, though, about saving money on the copy editors. That, I think, we have to blame on the Internet.
