Citizen Journalism

Rereading the recent article by Carol Forsloff on the need for pay-for subscription journals I find that what she is proposing is nothing short of---dare I say it---PROFESSIONALISM! I have had a lot of time to think of such matters lately and have come to the conclusion that the whole concept of “citizen journalism” is flawed to its very core. Journalism is not something that just anyone off the street can do. The very idea is insulting to the generations of dedicated journalists who have given their working lives, and sometimes their actual lives, to the quest of setting the facts before the public. My old journalism professor, Mr. Mack, used to tell us that a true journalist could report the axe murder of his own mother and not reveal to the reader his opinion of the matter. Modern citizen “journalism” falls rather short of that lofty standard. What we get instead is little more than an extended editorial page interspersed with highly tendentious “news” stories. Schools can teach the basics, but many of the best journalists learned on the job. However they did not learn alone. If they were lucky they had a black-hearted editor with the hide of a rhinoceros, the cold merciless eye of a hawk, and a tongue with the sharpness of razors who would demand a level of professionalism that seems almost insane in today’s atmosphere of citizen “journalism,” and would blister the hide off any reporter so foolhardy as to offer some of the thinly rewritten plagiarism that passes for journalism in today’s market. And that’s the problem. The whole edifice of the news rests on the shoulders of the editor. They are the captains of the ship. A good one can steer his news desk to the islands of the blessed----creditability. A bad one can sink their barque in a sea of yellow journalism and partisan propaganda. There was a time when the news was an end in itself and the editor stood between his journalist and the advertising department like a mother lion protecting her cubs. Alas, those days are gone and business drives the news which, as a result, has become little more than “infotainment.” Today a site lives or dies by the traffic it gets, and the criteria of a “good” story is not how accurate its information is or how well written the story is but rather how many “hits” it gets and that is determined by how well it appeals to the partisan feelings of the audience. Paying for access to a site would force the reader to ask themselves if they are getting value for their money. As Thomas Paine warned us “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods…” We have very low expectations for those things we get for free but demand a much higher standard for that which we choose to buy. True, there will be those who will value partisanship over accuracy, but that sort has always been with us. In the long run however the appeal of high quality usually triumphs over the low appeal of propaganda, which is why, in the golden era of newspapers, those with the best reputation for accurate, high quality journalism usually, beat out the partisan rags in the marketplace. So by all means let there be pay-for subscription journals, but for God’s sake let’s drop the silly façade of “citizen journalism” and call it what it is----a professional news organization.