Citizen Journalists and Responsibility

"Having a platform means that you have some responsibilities, and responsibilities are the opposite of rights." [Michael Tomasky, Editor, Guardian America]

Jeff Jarvis and Michael Tomansky recently debated whether the Internet's new breed of citizen journalists should have the responsibilities of journalists or the rights of citizens. [hat tip to Robin Hamman] Jay Rosen himself participates to the conversation. I think this kind of debate is good to have to promote awareness of the issues and potential conflicts of interest we may bump into.

More and more we find our roles overlap - blogger, employee, stockholder, customer, etc. Do the rules of engagement overlap? Where do we stand on ethics and responsibility? My hunch is that at this stage it is a personal question we ask ourselves. Certainly there are always consequences to how we answer it. Let's start with a definition of citizen journalist. Directly from Wikipedia:

Citizen journalism, also known as public or participatory journalism, is the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information," according to the seminal report We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information, by Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis. They say, "The intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires."

Does citizen journalist equal blogger? In some instances it might. We call people who help spread the word on companies and their products Citizen Marketers and we call people who help disseminate and discuss the news Citizen Journalists. In both cases, people are the message. Here's what happens when we are the message, though - it is up to you to figure out where your responsibility falls.

As Andrew Tyndall says in the comments to Jarvis' post:

In an instance when one is invited to listen to something that is private and is told that it is so, surely one is bound not to repeat it, however newsworthy it might happen to be, and being a journalist — or calling oneself a journalist — is no license to violate that understanding and make such speech public.

That point does not fall under “rules for bloggers.” It falls under rules for human beings.

Agree/disagree? Why?

 

Comments

[Mario Vellandi]

Sure it applies to human beings - we're taking the ethical conditional reasoning from a lower order, to a higher one with wider application. But of course it's a good idea to be mindful of the potential implications of keeping quiet in dubious circumstances with negative externalities, and deciding for oneself how on how to proceed.

[Joe Cascio]

I totally agree with the "rules for human beings" quote. Doing otherwise is just being a dick.

But people ought to be free to be dicks if they want to. They should NOT be held to the same ethical standards as print or broadcast journalists. People ought to be able to say and disseminate anything they feel comfortable with. If they shoot themselves in the foot by saying something stupid, well, that's their loss. But just because someone's thoughts go out in video or blog form does NOT change the fact that it is one individual citizen speaking his or her mind. That to me is sacrosanct. It is free speech with all the warts and hairs. It is available to anyone and everyone. Citizens have the right to opinion, regardless of how biased, prejudiced or flat incorrect it is. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it should have to pass some kind of Old Media test of Fair and Balanced. We all know what THAT means now, right? :)

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Mario - some of it is very personal, yes. Yet there are also common sense and ethical principles that can guide us.

@Joe - I say it often, we are accountable for our actions, even when we don't hold ourselves as such. And we learn from our mistakes, don't we? It might be more an issue with people still being used to believing all that is in print and on TV (and now online?) as true. I think it was Salman Rushdie, who I heard speak a couple of months ago, who said that journalists are not objective. There's the angle in the story, there's the allure of the Pulitzer... and then there's the being human, too. We always filter reality through our own perception, no exceptions to that.

[Geoff Livingston]

Guess I disagree. Unfortunately while I cater to the rules for human beings approach, I do think this medium is 100% free. People do whatever they want. Nastiness attracts nasties, and vice versa.

Who wins? I'm not sure, but there's something for everyone.

Regardless, Pandora's box has been opened and there's no turning back. Adherence to codes will be voluntary regardless of whether or not society feels that ethics demands better exploration of facts, etc.

[Valeria Maltoni]

I think we'll learn that there is no definite winner, as there are no complete losers - just different approaches and standards. Which goes to your concept of voluntary adherence ;-)

Thank you for voicing your take, Geoff.

[Kashif]

Just like professionals, citizen journalists should have some rules and ethics to follow and rely on, especially when breaking news or following a juicy scoop. I believe there is very fine line between journalists and paparazzi.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Kashif,

Yes, I appreciate the difference, there needs to be some accountability, even if at personal level only. Part of it may come from using one's name. One would think that many of these instances would be covered by common sense. Common sense though is not that common. Thank you for voicing your take.

[pyrmont]

In my humble opinion this argument is outdated and null and void.

Maybe in eons gone by when media in the broadest sense was diverse, and one could possible argue that we were actually getting "news"

Flash back to the present, Media or rather Media Ownership is Concentrated, where the tv/radio network owner is also the same dude in a different building down the road...attempting to sell you XYZ widgets.. . With "news" delivery/presentation having so many agendas...

It is within this very "manufactured journalistic environment" that People have have decided to find/create tools (technology platforms) to both interact and in a way find/discern the real news(social media sites) ....

Thus one could argue that only when traditional media provides "real transparency" can you then even begin to ask to define so called responsibilities from "citizen journalism"

[Jon Burg]

Not all bloggers are journalists. But then again, the title of "journalist" is, in my opinion, subjective. Incidentally, I was way behind on my reading, and hadn't found this post when I wrote this piece - http://jburg.typepad.com/future/2008/05/new-media-journ.html along a similar vein.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@pyrmont - thank you for sharing your take. Media used to be your neighbor talking about what was going on around the block. It used to be the guy at the grocery store telling stories from one customer to the other. More and more, it is going back to that in many places. I agree with you that while at one point the content used to be merely sponsored by advertisers, now it exists to cater to them in many publications (not all). This is a bigger discussion than we should have in the comments. It would be a great one to have in an open forum - with an open mindset. Thank you for stimulating further thought on the topic.

@Jon - I hear you with being behind on reading. I still have 10 books unopened by my desk, with 3 I am currently reading ;-) Interestingly, I am now thinking of journalist and journaling in the same span.