Comments on: The silliest, and most destructive, debate in journalism

By: Andrew Brenner

Andrew Brenner — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:29:24 +0000

The frame is inaccurate and inadequate, I agree. The onslaught of citizen journalists should be framed as a renaissance of civic repsonsibility, a result of social forces colliding with corporate interests.

Many of us who “do” citizen journalism see media conglomeration and top-down corporate bottom lines as the force that drives the revolution in the processing and filtering of information. We have in our hands technology that begs for two-way communication and most corporations aren’t really interested in two-way communication and the open exchange of thought — unless it drives profit.

When the all the journalists, citizen and professional, realize that the renaissance is more about decentralization and two-way communication than it is about capitalism, the paradigm will shift from the interests of the Gannetts, Tribunes, Foxes and Viacoms back towards a more egallitarian form of shared responsibility and community.

The idea of news and information as a business doesn’t have to be thrown away, mind you; however, it needs this renaissance – humanity needs this renaissance.

By: mahendra dash

mahendra dash — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:25:18 +0000

Most of our people are invited.What they(Corporate,Political persons,High Official Persons) for lunch or dinner and a good gift.Then obviously,one can not just criticize.The persons invited are surely from known press.Say if in India,then,PTI,UNI or some local news papers.
Code of conduct should be there for journalists as well.And mostly,their office must protect them for their free reportijng.Equally one deserves punishment for biased reporting.

By: Mark Oller

Mark Oller — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:00:13 +0000

The difference between blogs and the mainstream press is lack of censorship. Communist newspapers are less censored than American newspapers, not including The Washington Examiner. No one can accuse communists of being the grand inquisitors of pro-homosexual orthodoxy. One of the few redeeming virtues of communist totalitarianism is its total lack of interest in homosexuality.
Nor do communist newspapers censor any anti-Christian or anti-Jewish opinions. Or course, tiny minority religions are fair game in this home of the free and the brave.
Let’s stop censoring any opinion which might offend the powerful, and start engaging in free debate. Only falsehoods need to be protected from disagreement. This truism is the most explosive idea that can possibly be uttered. It is an ICBM aimed at every lie.

By: Travis Henry

Travis Henry — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:42:24 +0000

I often say that journalism to me means helping people tell their stories. I believe there are many different ways to do that. How anybody can be opposed to that baffles me. http://denver.yourhub.com/DENVER/Blogs/News-Politics/News/General-News/Blog~157692.aspx

By: Michael Silence

Michael Silence — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:04:39 +0000

Well said. As a print journalist and blogger (http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/) I’ve watched as the melding of the two continues, and that’s a good thing. The MSM needs to quit thinking of the bloggers as the enemy, and the bloggers need to quit thinking of the MSM as some sort of monolith. We are all consumers of news and better journalism is the result when the two combine their efforts.

By: Robert Niles

Robert Niles — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:39:44 +0000

Graham, I never suggested that anyone alter the reporter’s data, just that they might be given the opportunity to add to it. (Which, I suppose alters the dataset, but not necessarily in a bad way.)

I’ll be revisiting the “what is journalism” question in future columns, but I don’t think I’m giving too much away in saying that I believe the proper definition of journalism looks more toward what it is than how it was produced. Yet most definitions of journalism I’ve heard from people in the so-called “mainstream media” focus on process and production methods than on end results.

By: Jeff Wilson

Jeff Wilson — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:13:37 +0000

I agree that the Times should have a comment section at the end of stories like this. Several major media web properties do, and I enjoy seeing reader’s reactions to articles.

But comments on stories aren’t citizen journalism. It’s just more “man on the street” reactions to legitimate news. And gathering open-ended input from readers before publishing a story is just asking for trouble.

As far as the St. Paul piece, I think it’s correct. Where would blogging be without the mainstream media? Few of us have the resources to cover news the way they do, and even fewer of us have the training and raw talent.

To me, to be called a journalist, mainstream, citizen or otherwise, you have to fulfill some requirements. Real journalism answers who, what, when, where and how. Journalists write in as objective a manner as possible. They provide fair and accurate accounting for both sides of a story. That’s not to say they can’t write opinion, but I think opinion ought to be labeled as such, just as it is in the newspaper.

So to the extent that bloggers write in such a manner, it’s fair to consider citizen journalism as real journalism. I guess the question is: what is journalism, and do we value the concept?

By: Graham Johnston

Graham Johnston — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:33:26 +0000

Don’t you think there is a danger is letting unknown people alter data (reporting) that a reporter has worked on? Couldn’t Amazon just as easily add data that would skew the results in their favor?

By: Ujjwal Acharya

Ujjwal Acharya — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:18:07 +0000

I believe the first idea of involving people while the story is still in progress won’t appeal to many journalists – primarily because it will delay the news item; and journalists won’t like to spread the story ideas.

But your second idea is surely a good one and I believe many media websites have the comment system now – although my personal experience with comments in Nepal’s news media websites is not that pleasing one.