Journalism by any other name

Traditionalists tend to see things ‘their’ way. In hip hop, traditional fans consider hip hop ‘real’ if it sounds like the music they grew up on. Country music consistently debates whether or not Taylor Swift is ‘real country’ and if traditional country artists are ‘too country.’ In theological studies, the “priest class” ultimately defines and maintains these terms. In the secular world, these people are called ‘gatekeepers.’ For most of the 20th century, media gatekeepers were able to maintain control of the way consumers accessed media. Now, those days are over.  Cheap technology allows regular, every day citizens to create and distribute their own media. This new form of citizen journalism is very threatening to traditional journalists, but most evidence shows both can exist together.

Traditionalists make a point to distinguish between ‘real journalism’ and ‘citizen journalism.’ In their minds, real journalism is more valid product, since it is vetted and reinforced by ethical principles. Citizen journalism is less valid because it blends too much opinion and commentary. While these criticisms of citizen journalism are true, it is also true that citizen journalism can add valuable context to existing stories. Commenting that adds factual links about a story, on the scene camera video or first hand testimony can all context that deepens a story and gives it more layers. Overall, this additional citizen journalism makes for a richer user experience, especially if the meta journalism is vetted by traditional, experienced journalists. If there is a problem, it is not that citizen journalism exists. The unwillingness of traditional news outlets to take full advantage of citizen journalists and the meta commentary that comes with it is the real problem. Citizen journalism is a resource. The media outlets that take full advantage of it will most likely be successful. Those that don’t may find themselves left behind in this new media environment.