David Hazinski is a former NBC correspondent and currently a professor at the University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism.
In a recent column in the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mr.Hazinski writes:
"Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.
The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.
But the real question should be: Who will ensure traditional journalists, a.k.a. the mainstream media (MSM), adhere to their own code of ethics?
The Society of Professional Journalists states the code of ethics are voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.
The main titles are the Preamble, Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently and Be Accountable.
Lets start with this from Mr. Hazinski: "Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip."
One has to wonder if Mr. Hazinski has been keeping up with the news of his own counterparts in the media and whether they pass this test themselves.
For example, AP and Reuters, followed by
MSNBC,
AFP and
dozens of other media outlets reported a story about 20 beheaded bodies found in Iraq back in late October, blasting the story across the world.
The problem? There were no beheaded bodies. In fact, it was a blogger, a "citizen journalist" named Bob Owens, from
Confederate Yankee, that followed up and did the fact-checking the MSM didn't bother to dabble with. Ultimately, certain media outlets like AP and Reuters, days later,
finally issued a correction, with far less fanfare than the original false story received.
The AP, via
MSNBC's correction, read:
BAGHDAD - Reports of 20 beheaded bodies found south of Baghdad earlier this week were untrue and may have been fabricated by insurgents aiming to incite violence and revenge killings, the U.S. military said Saturday.
Reuters excuse was:
Verifying reports in Iraq is very hard for journalists, who have been systematically targeted by different militant groups and rely extensively on local sources for information.
So the MSM found itself in a situation where it reported a rumor as a news story and as a fact, then blasted it across the world. To add insult to injury, their "corrections" were filled with excuses, seen by far less of the population, and left the majority with the impression the original story was true.
Back to those Journalistic Ethics, under the title of Seek Truth and Report It, the first caveat states "Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information."
Journalists should: "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises."
Moving right along, another citizen journalist,
Gateway Pundit, brings examples of five additional stories in the last six weeks that have been proven wrong. Furthermore, they demonstrate
Time did not issue a correction on their report of the beheaded bodies. The one that never happened.
The "Be Accountable" portion of the journalistic ethics clear states, "Admit mistakes and correct them promptly."
Another example comes from
TimesOnline which brought the news of some unwelcome surprises for BBC when its executive board gathered for one of their weekly meetings. They reported:
Much to the apparent surprise of Bennett and Abramsky, two experienced and highly respected corporation bureaucrats, a procession of contrite and nervous producers came forward to ’fess up. The public, it seemed, had been deceived with unnerving consistency, particularly over programmes with phone-in polls and competitions. And on the corporation’s most noble flagship enterprises, too. Comic Relief and Children in Need, for example.
“We just sat there absolutely stunned,” one executive board member told me, “shocked beyond belief. Nobody had any idea that this was going on on such a scale.”
Another clear violation of the journalistic code of ethics is to use photos that misrepresent the news. As the code states: "Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
The Autonomist captured a picture provided by AFP with this caption:
" An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City." This was the photo:
As The Autonomist said "The only way those bullets hit her house was if someone threw them at her house. You see, they've never been fired."
The examples go on and on, and this would be a 10-page article if I were to list all of the MSM mistakes I have been writing about in the last year, so this will have to suffice for me to make my point.
So when we get back to the point of Mr. Hazinski saying citizen reports should be verified by the MSM, one has to wonder where the problem exists. It seems Mr. Hazinski should worry more about regulating the traditional media because their stories are seen by more people, and their reporting of rumors is far more dangerous.
When you look at the evidence, you see examples like
doctored photos by so-called professionals like, Adnan Hajj, the ex-Reuters photographer; and outright lies, (see
The New Republic's (TNR) Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp), where it took TNR four and half months, and 14 pages of excuses, before they admited they could "not stand behind" the stories. It was
bloggers and the
Weekly Standard who discovered lies that were reported as truth.
So again, the question is where the problem exists; it is the "traditional media" that more than half the American public says it does not trust. And rightly so. Furthermore, 47 per cent of Europeans do not trust the media, according to a
Harris Interactive and Eurobarometer survey.
So when Mr. Harzinski speaks of standards, perhaps he should look within his own profession.
In a very good counter article to Hazinski's, Leonard Witt, owner of CitizenJournalism.org, felt obligated
to respond to David Hazinski's opinion piece.
He makes the following points:
• 59 per cent of print journalists who won Pulitzer Prizes never studied journalism;
• 58 per cent of journalists awarded Nieman Fellowships never studied journalism, and;
• 51 per cent of journalists awarded Knight Fellowships at Stanford University never studied journalism.
Considering that in every example listed above, it was a "citizen journalist" that did the work, fact checked, verified, debunked and, in some cases, forced the "traditional journalists" to issue corrections to their false stories, Mr. Hazinski might have started a war he will not be able to stop.
Many bloggers these days would argue unfettered "mainstream journalism" is far more risky than reports coming from citizen journalists. One has to wonder if Mr. Hazinski is simply worried citizen journalism is taking too much of a dent from MSM's traditional audience.
The dinosaur media no longer has the market on truth, news and researching facts.
