November 19, 2009
Publish2: Capturing the power of the link

An on-scene report from Virginia Tech shows a citizen videographer engaging in risky behavior.
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.
Albarghouti certainly can't claim ignorance in this either. CNN.com quotes him: "When I saw the policemen taking their guns out, then I knew that this was serious."
In a nice bit of self-publicity, CNN.com closes the piece with this bit:
... he [Albarghouti] often visited CNN.com and knew he could send his video to I-Report.
Unlike being a doctor or lawyer, where it means something to say "I am a doctor" or "I am a lawyer", saying "I am a journalist" would never send me to jail. The transformation from citizen to journalism can be immediate. No certification is necessary. "Presto chango I am a journalist"...oh, I don't need the presto chango.
So let's get real here. Doctors in earlier times got fed up with quacks thus a real profesion was born...liars went to prison. To make journalism a profession, you have to create one. You then have to sit in committees and regulate each other according to agreed upon standards.
All of this Pro journalists versus Am citizen journalists talk among journalists offers a false dichotomy.
Take for one example, an expert on fish. He or she is not a journalist, but is light years ahead of any journalist in the knowledge dept.The reporter spends only a little time on a fish report and then speeds on to the next assignment. Ahem. Who is more a danger to the public in this aforementioned case in regards to possible inaccuracy?
It can be argued that, in reality, it is journalists that offer the greatest danger for making errors. Citizens, all around them, have the expertise.They are also called sources and readers in addition to citizen journalists.
However, the majority of humans who know what to do in a police standoff are military, security and police who have training and experience. A few journalists have knowledge--certainly a small minority--from experience of gun fire.
When fire, military and police refer to civilians as less able to cope with a shoot out than they are; I buy it. Their training prepares them for the experience.
Are journalists safer? More able to take care of themselves by virtue of the fact they are journalists and not citizens in the Blackburg crisis?...not so much. The i reporter did just fine and got paid too.
Hey, just found this...from UK
"Journalism students to undergo 'hostile environment' training"
4/19/2007
By HoldtheFrontPage staff
"Journalism students at University College Falmouth are to undergo training to prepare them for reporting from hostile environments.
"Trainees on the one-year MA in International Journalism course will spend three days at the Penhale Military Training Camp near Newquay, learning life-saving skills through modules on personal safety, first aid, and kidnap and ambush avoidance.
"There will also be a number of scenario-based exercises to help them stay safe whichever part of the world they work in...."
See: http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/training/070419hos.shtml
Gee, maybe citizens should apply....
November 19, 2009
Publish2: Capturing the power of the link
November 13, 2009
The News Landscape in 2014: Transformed or Diminished? Formulating a Game Plan for Survival
entrepreneurial journalism
social media
grassroots journalism
revenue
management
tools
newsroom convergence
journalism education
ethics
multimedia
website design
newspaper blogs
discussion boards
usability
online video
elections
political blogs
search engine optimization
The Los Angeles Times
Google
2009
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
2008
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
2007
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
2006
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
2005
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Before Oct. 2004
Business
Ethics
Mark Glaser
Stacy Kramer
Law
Spike Report
Technology
Workplace
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?