March 31, 2006 3:51 PM

Response to a thoughtful journalist's concerns about 'citizen journalism'

Samuel Freedman is a journalist I respect. He's a professor of journalism at Columbia University and a former reporter for The New York Times. He's written a thoughtful piece on 'citizen journalismm,' headlined "On the differences between the amateur and the pro."

I just wish he and others would move beyond the idea that citizens participating in the creation of content means an erosion of journalism standards. In my view, the addition of more voices to the conversation in our society is a plus and the angst of journalists is misplaced.

Here's Freedman's central point:

"Citizen journalism does not merely challenge the notion of professionalism in journalism but completely circumvents it. It is journalism according to the ethos of indie rock ‘n’ roll: Do It Yourself.

"For precisely such reasons, I despair over the movement’s current cachet. However wrapped in idealism, citizen journalism forms part of a larger attempt to degrade, even to disenfranchise journalism as practiced by trained professionals."

In my view, citizen journalism and traditional journalism can move on two tracks, wide tracks to be sure. And they will cross-fertilize each other. Citizens will learn from traditional journalists. And traditional journalists will also learn from what citizens are doing, in part because citizens may be less bound by tradition and thus more open to experimentation.

Citizen journalism is not an attempt to degrade or disenfranchise journalism. That makes it seem like the concept is motivated by animus against media elites and mainstream news organizations. I believe it's the result of sweeping technological changes that are affecting journalists as much as they're affecting citizens. Normal people today have tools that journalists would have died for only a few years ago. They're widely available. And they're cheap. So people play with them. That's why citizen journalism is flourishing.

And if sometimes the citizens' voices express anger at mainstream news organizations, why is that to be feared? We have learned that scrutiny of news organizations can lead to more accurate and better journalism. I welcome the self-policing aspect of the Web.

Freedman says he knows it's hard to defend traditional journalism today. I don't agree. Of course there have been numerous embarrassing episodes. But in my view news organizations and journalists today are better than they've ever been, in part because they've benefited from the same technological developments that have enabled citizen journalism to flourish. I look at what we're able to do today to serve our readers vs. what we were able to do just 10 years ago - when we launched our first Web site - and it's clear that we can offer so much more. And that what we provide is much more sophisticated and complete. While citizens are embracing the Internet, which causes concern among newspaper journalists, the truth is they're also embracing our Web sites, which often serve as the basis for the national conversation.

This new world is richer because there's room for both the amateur and the pro. The rise of the citizen journalist doesn't mean the demise of the traditional journalist. It means more voices and more opportunity for the citizen and the journalist to interact. They'll learn from one another. And it will be for the better.

That's why we at the Rocky Mountain News are so dedicated to YourHub.com, our 'citizen journalism' initiative.

Sure there may be room for debate over whether 'citizen journalism' is the best term to describe what's happening. But in the end, that's not all that important. What is important is to embrace the opportunities of this new era and to show by our work why journalism is so valuable.

Posted by at 3:51 PM | Comments (1)