news for all, by all

Perhaps the most common argument I’ve heard against citizen journalism is in reaction to the idea that anyone can be a journalist. When you have studied and trained for years to be one, slaved as a cub reporter, covered beats, conducted interviews, and risked your life as a journalist, being told that your work can be done by anyone with a cellphone, a computer, no experience, and no training, takes some time getting used to.

Nevertheless, citizen journalism is important because it empowers the people. As Dan Gillmor writes in his book,We the Media, “Once mere consumers of news, the audience… is learning how to join the process of journalism.” Journalism has always aimed to be a forum for public discourse. Citizen journalism is proof that the public is aware and engaged. It tells us that the public wants to participate in and contribute to journalism’s watchdog role. Whether this speaks of a distrust of the press is another story.

I agree with Mark Glaser’s observation in MediaShift, that “mainstream media reporters and producers are not the exclusive center of knowledge on a subject.” Traditional journalists are not supposed to know all the answers, but acting with the public’s interest in mind, are supposed to ask the questions the audience would want to ask. Citizen journalism is the public exercising its right and its ability to ask their own questions and to document the world as they see and understand it.

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote in The Elements of Journalism: “People have an intrinsic need -- an instinct -- to know what is occurring beyond their direct experience.” Citizen journalists are born from this instinct, just as traditional journalists are. And if traditional journalists have done their job well, citizen journalists will share and exhibit the same news values. Good journalism, by whatever name and through whatever medium, should always aim for the truth.