PressEthic

E. Schwartz blogs on Infoworld that he is concerned about the implications of citizen journalism.

Schwartz argues that while citizen journalists are knowledgeable, they do not possess the skills to remain neutral. This makes it difficult for readers to determine reality.

He says:

After all, doesn't a software engineer know more about metadata, the enterprise service bus, and master data management than some reporter with a BA or MA in journalism and a minor in English Lit?

Yes, they do know more technically. However, unlike reporters who view remaining neutral as the golden rule of journalism, tech experts often have an ax to grind and a point of view to promote.

The result is that the reader, if diligent, would have to become the reporter sorting out fact from fiction. In other words doing the job reporters were hired to do.

I disagree with Schwartz’s position.

Firstly, citizen journalism is not about the replacement of traditional journalism. It is an addition, a development, a progression.

As Schwartz identifies, citizens often know more about certain beats than reporters. Citizen journalism is about embracing this fact. It is about drawing on the knowledge of these expert citizens to broaden the dialogue on a certain topic of discussion. It helps both journalists and readers determine the ‘truth’ because more expert opinions are being considered. If a journalist makes a mistake, then a knowledgeable reader can correct him and this mistake can be cleared up instantly. This has not been the case in newspapers, where the corrections are separated from the mistake in time and space.

Furthermore Schwartz uses the notion of neutrality to argue against citizen journalism. He essentially argues that citizen journalists present a slanted position on a topic, whereas journalists do not.

Hello!!!

Schawrtz’s argument regarding reporter neutrality is quixotic. David Utter, in his own response to Schwartz’s argument, exemplifies my sentiments nicely.

Utter says:

How many reporters do truly remain neutral? In WebProNews' home base of Central Kentucky, the local paper, a Knight Ridder property for the time being, presents stories written by its reporters, columnists, and chosen syndication pieces that display a much different angle than those in the Wall Street Journal.

Most news outlets present a somewhat slanted position on most issues through a variety of mechanisms. The difference is newspapers often hide these positions under the guise of neutrality, whereas blogs and citizen journalists do not.

Bloggers are upfront about their partisan nature. There is no pretense of neutrality. This allows readers to compare different points of view on certain issues. This is not a bad thing as Schwartz argues. Instead it results in a better informed audience.

Standards of objectivity and neutrality are mechanisms that traditional journalists use to inspire trust in readers. There is always going to be a place for these standards in traditional news. However, one must remember that at best reporters can only ever aspire to be neutral or objective. It is almost impossible for someone to truly escape their own bias.

Another way to inspire trust is to be upfront about your position to readers, but be fair and accurate when your make your argument. This applies to both citizen and professional journalists.

Citizen journalists are not a threat to professional journalists, nor are they a threat to the reporting of truth. Instead they can be considered a worthy addition to the discourse on any particular topic. Citizen journalists offer a different perspective to those offered by more traditional forms of media. For example they can offer first hand accounts of tragedy, or help shape the news agenda from the bottom up perspective (i.e. tell professional journalists what issues are important to the citizens).