Full disclosure: I'm not a big fan of citizen journalism. I certainly think it has its merits -- and I believe Web journalism should actively involve the audience and seek its input -- but I find most "Cit J" efforts lacking.
That being said, I'd love to hear the opinions of other journalism folks on the following:
CNN.com and the broadcast network are both showcasing a short cellphone video taken during the events at Virgina Tech. The video, which was shot by a witness, shows armed police surrounding a campus building. Gunfire is heard in the background. At one point the videographer darts into the open to get a better shot.
Nothing happened to the witness, but I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The videographer ran toward armed police officers during a tense standoff -- and, presumably, he was holding a camera phone up while he moved.
I understand there's no way to stop this type of thing, but it does bring up a host of issues around citizen journalism. Namely, does this type of coverage put regular folks in unnecessary danger? Are mainstream media outlets encouraging this type of behavior by running this material? Or, is it an anything-goes scenario where the onus is on the individual, not on the organization?
I certainly don't have the answers, but I'd like to hears what others think.
Responses:
From Jon Garfunkel on April 16, 2007 at 9:23 PM
I'll share your skepticism about "CitJ" in general.But I don't think you have a strong case here. People have been trying to picture and video of interesting and newsworthy live events going back to the days when you couldn't publish it on your own.
Obviously, it is perhaps thousands of times more likely that someone will have a video recording device these days than just five years ago. I think it's just a matter of numbers.
There's another worry, as Mark Glaser wrote in a July 2005 OJR piece, Did London bombings turn citizen journalists into citizen paparazzi?