I don't think Digital Journal meant anything other than people making decisions about the relative value of certain news items, thus controlling the news and what is relevant or not in some degree when they posted as their header "you control the news". Citizen journalism is to highlight those areas also that might not be done by mainstream news. But I wonder in this world of "anybody can" if the profession of journalism isn't at risk itself and therefore some of the underpinnings of what makes a democracy. As someone who writes both citizen and traditional news, I have admiration for both and have found excellent, thoughtful, intelligent, well-written material by CJs that could match anything and anyone found traditionally trained. I have also seen students turned out as full fledged journalists whose grammar, spelling and content all indicated they should have selected another field of study. But there are fundamental issues in both that need to be addressed, since running a government well requires informed citizens. With 24/7 news coverage one would assume people get it, but I'm not sure that's true. Instead what they get is what someone believes is relevant--either an editor, a writer, or the owner in back of both. A writer can control the news in very important ways just by selecting particular information and overlooking others. Some do it purposely in order to put out an agenda. Others do it by simple oversight, because one doesn't have either infinite time to research everything nor to digest it sufficiently to express it. But if I write an article based on several sources, several of which give most of the details, and then omit the ones I don't like, I have controlled the news my readers get. For example, the news might report how a man slid off the road, hitting a house and hurting its occupants in order to avoid running into a van carrying children that was out of control in some heroic endeavor. If I write only that a man slid off the road, hitting a house and hurting its occupants, readers might assume the guy was drunk, driving recklessly or otherwise was in the wrong. That's what is done all the time in both camps, more frequently in citizen journalism because there is less supervision and editing of material. Controlling the news can become almost absolute, and since some people don't know the difference, from just looking at a website, this can be a serious matter. Furthermore in this world where people can get gangs to invade articles, planting either positive or negative votes and comments, the control of the news is enhanced by personal popularity or lack of it. If I knew how to solve the problem, I would offer an idea right now. I can only point out its existence and through dialogue and work with others find a way to help. I can be part of the problem or the solution. I can be part of the solution by including new facts I find others bring to me. I can also alert others to bias. But when all comments are cut off, including those critical simply of the neglect of key information, then there is nothing left but information that can be controlled to the detriment of many.

blog:3869:3::0