February (second posting)
In a concept known as "gift economy," businesses profit from the free labor of others rather than from paid employees. Opinion columns and letters to the editor are good examples, but now this concept is migrating to mainstream media online for news stories as well. The Associated Press now distributes photographs, video and stories from "citizen journalists" posted free on NowPublic.com; KFTV-TV in Santa Rosa, Calif., fired 13 journalists and is asking viewers to contribute programming for the station; many “Web news sites” depend overwhelmingly on volunteers. Channel 7 in Albuquerque invites viewers to send in “news videos.” What does this trend toward the “amateurization of the media” mean for journalism and for the media's role in informing the public?
14 comments:
The problem I see with the "Amateurization of the Media" is that the public with its average seventh grade education does not know the difference between quality, verified information and the gossip they are reading from the rest of the public. Without journalists to act as gatekeepers, the general public is being bombarded with little more than gossip, rumors and outright lies and mistruths. There is no one to call the amateurs on what they are posting. I hope this concept goes full circle, and in the coming years people will realize that journalists are needed to help the public disseminate the real news from the inconsequential gibberish they are chattering about.
We go to school to become journalists because there is a specific way to do things. All the amateurization of media does is make our degrees worthless.
Say someone studies for years to become a dentist. They go about it in the typical fashion, get a degree, start a practice and begin gaining a clientele. Rules and regulations are followed and the dentist is recognized by the state as a Dr.
Now imagine someone who works as a substitute teacher but has a knack for working on teeth. Because he doesn't have a degree or all the knowledge and tools he should have, he doesn't charge you for your dental work. He does it just to do it.
Which guy do you want fixing your cavity? The one that knows what he's doing and is charging for it, or the one who knows enough, but might not have the best outcome?
The point is, there's a specific way of doing things, for a reason. Journalism isn't something people straight off the street can do well. By amateurizing media, all media companies are doing is lowering their standards.
The amateurization of media means several different things for journalism. This would allow amateur journalists to have a chance to get their stories published — no matter if the journalists is credible or not. Also, professional journalists are trained to be objective. These amateur journalists might not get all sides of the story and they might sway readers to one side or another, which is a big no no in journalism. You’re supposed to present the facts to the reader and let them make up their mind by themselves. Professional journalists are also made to double-check their work and fact check their work. These amateur journalists could be calling anything a fact, when really it’s not, but how will the reader know it’s not? They won’t.
I think this means that people will start going to these other sources for their daily information instead of getting their information from a reliable news source. There will be big problems if this happens, because then people won’t be getting the full story, but skewed ones. In some cases, they might not make informed decisions.
I've gotta agree with everyone else on this one. Asking Joe Shmoe off the street for news, while financially maybe be a good idea, really isn't that good of one. Asking for photos is iffy but it's been done for a long time, but for actual stories, that's just not bright. This will just end up leading to news sources being discredited and basically becoming tabloids. More people will turn to blogs, which offers similar problems. Plus it just doesn't seem right to fire someone who knows what they're doing to save some money then ask some person off to street to help pick up the slack they created.
I agree with Amanda's point about the dentist and what would happen in a flooded market of "free amateur journalists" and the rest of us who went to school to learn the rules is that our voices and the experience we gain become washed out and watered down.
The average american would rather not wade through the daunting amount of info to make a judgement on whose information to listen to and instead gravitates to the lowest common denominator sound bite that they can swallow and regurgitate on command.
The picture becomes even more murky when discussing the "rules" that we have learned to follow and that amateurs may not respect like we do. The major one in my opinion is objectivity. When people begin slanting their "gift economy" and it effects the way some one hears and judges a story it can create misinformation and unnecessary confusion, and as a byproduct we the real journalists who actually want to give the real story are washed out.
I think it means the quality of journalism will decline in both print and broadcast journalism. This takes away from those who have studied journalism or any form of communications. Why should news organizations be allowed to hire employees that are clearly unqualified to work in the realm of news?
I understand money is an issue and seems this trend of amateur journalism is in full force and here to stay for some time.
I have two perspectives on this. In one aspect, I feel that this "amateurization of the media" is somewhat demeaning to journalism. I think there is a certain level of education, skill and talent necessary to master the art of story telling and the language that affects it. On the other hand, I feelthat the more access we have to what's going on everywhere is a good thing that will result in a more informed and advanced world.
Personally, I am saddened by the “amateurism” that the media field of journalism has now made standard. First of all, it is troubling to myself as a journalism student because I have studied for the past four years in hopes of becoming a professional journalist. Now, just anybody can share their opinions in the form of providing news stories. What has all my work been for? Media stations decisions to allow this form of free media does allow others to share their opinions, but since when has the news been subjective. During my first class as a journalism student, it was repeatedly hammered into our heads, that as journalists it is our duty to provide just the facts. With so many “journalists” out there, who is fact checking and who is making sure these news stories are objective. Sports writing and columns are meant for opinions, not hard news stories. News organizations need to reread their mission statements and determine if they are still providing the public with what they promised.
Many people do not understand what goes into being a journalist. We go to school to learn not only how to write a fair story, but also we learn law and ethics of journalism. Now you make the degree/profession look worthless.
Now any Joe off the street can write stories for anyone with out thinking about all of the skills we learned over the years in college. This can affect the quality of stories and journalism in today’s world.
This is what you are going to get is amateur type of reporting. It’s hard to hear people say that they can do the job we have skills for and taught. Reporting can be an art from when its done right.
I once heard somebody wonder aloud why anybody would dedicate their lives to writing. The person, who I shall not identify, in the name of good taste, said that a person is capable of writing when they're 5 years old. So, then, this person said, why bother getting a degree in it?
This is the attitude that now pervades our industry, where media outlets are extending opportunities to undeserving contributors, just for the sake of it being free.
The problem with "amateur" journalists is that everybody thinks they can write. Well, yes, that's true. Usually, everybody is taught how to write.
That's not to say everybody is taught to write good (that, my friends, is an intentional use of an inappropriate word.) The proper phrase, of course, is taught to write well.
By allowing underqualified individuals to do spot work for outlets, we are polluting the quality of our content and diminishing our value in modern society.
Not everyone should be armed with a gun. Just the same, not everyone should be armed with dangerous suppositions.
It's irreverent to others who actually attend school and commit their lives to the profession.
-Isaac
None of these stories get play on legitimate news sites without passing some sort of test. Editors don’t throw viewer-generated news up on their sites willy-nilly. If it is hard news, there is fact checking that is involved, I have to assume.
But after the sources are checked out and facts are verified, I see no problem with an amateur generating some news. And if it turns out that they can do the job just as good, or better, than a “professional” journalist, then that reflects badly on “professional” journalists, not media outlets. Amateurs haven’t stolen all the journalism jobs. They are only butting into the jobs that can be done by an amateur.
Hard, in-depth, breaking-news stories will always need professionals who have time to dedicate to the story. But the other fluff that is printed in the paper is already amateurish, why not assign it to its rightful owners.
I think that a news organization's use of layman's journalism degrades the organization's image as a whole. As a journalist, you can't help but fell your company is pushing you out the door when they do this--which hurts the already wounded morale of the newsroom.
Good journalism costs money, so those willing to pay for their news won't have to deal with citizen journalism, so I don't see the practice supplanting real journalism. But the public will have to reach a breaking point with media companies when they'll need to demand that their product be made by professional journalists.
Sad to say that this is the new wave of the future for journalism. From now on I will have my nephews camera-ready to report for CNN
I agree with many others in the fact that "amateurization of the media" is a disgrace to journalism and to those of us who are trying to obtain degrees in journalism.
I find it particularly disgraceful for certain media outlets (Web, TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.), to rely heavily or even partially on amateur-based journalism. I think there should be space for the public to voice their opinions and contributions, but leave the news gathering up to the professionals.
I want my degree to have value. If I can soon obtain a journalism job, I don't want to be replaced by public contributors and amateur media.
Post a Comment