Why Citizen Journalism Doesn't Suck

In the Australian context, the debate about citizen journalism has been rekindled by a recent piece by James Farmer in The Age's 'blogs' section, provocatively titled "Citizen Journalism Sucks". Unfortunately, though, the piece regurgitates a number of the 'home truths' which industrial journalists have been trying to spread about their citizen cousins - yet at the same time, the sharply critical debate which took place in the commentaries attached to the article also demonstrated clearly how effective citizen journalism (properly understood as a discursive, dialogic form of journalism) can be. Here's my response to the article.

Perhaps the key criticism of the term 'citizen journalist' offered in the article is that it is insulting to 'real' journalists, products as they are of long years of study and practice. "As a bit of a reality check," James asks,

when was the last time you encountered a "citizen doctor", valued a report by a "citizen researcher", took off in a plane flown by a "citizen pilot" or saw justice meted out by "citizen policeman"?

Yet by the same token, we might ask why there are freelance journalists, when the idea of a freelance doctor or freelance pilot would fill us with dread...

Followers of the citizen journalism debate will recognise this argument as the standard (over)defensive response from the journalistic establishment to anyone threatening their position, of course. Journalism is posited as a profession akin to doctors, lawyers, police, or pilots - all professions requiring significant study and long years of on-the-job training, and tightly controlled by official boards which can confer as well as withdraw professional accreditation. Where, though, are the corresponding institutions for the journalistic 'profession'? Who confers membership here? It's quite obvious that journalism isn't a regulated profession like medicine or law - indeed, the enforcement of journalistic standards in cases such as the 'cash for comments' affair as well as in everyday journalistic practice has been shamefully lax. Any five minutes of Media Watch demonstrate clearly the lack of ethics and acountability which plagues the journalistic 'profession' in Australia. If journalism wanted to claim professional status, it should begin by holding itself to professional standards.

Ultimately, journalism is no more a profession than politics - an area of public life to which it is closely related, of course. Where, ideally, politics conducts dialogue, debate, and deliberation between differing opinions, journalism faithfully reports this process (ideally, again, by representing all relevant perspectives). And if it is so 'insulting' for journalists to be denied status as a profession, and to be reduced to the level of 'mere' citizens, then why does the same not apply to what is arguably the far more important field of politics? We may not have seen any citizen doctors or citizen pilots, but we entrust the fate of nations to what we may call 'citizen politicians' (and we indeed complain bitterly if they turn out to be 'professional politicians' ready to adjust their beliefs according to where the greatest majority can be found). Into what twisted reality have journalists retreated if 'citizen' has become a dirty word for them?

So, let's rethink this debate: rather than an insult, it should be the greatest of accolades for a reporter to be called a 'citizen journalist' - the implication being that they are respectful of their civic duty to maintain our democracy, rather than merely a duty to their employer to maintain an audience share. The greatest figures in the history of journalism - those courageous men and women who dared to report the truth as they saw it, whatever the personal or professional consequences - were such citizen journalists, who placed their duty as citizens to inform the public above their duty as employees. They were journalists who called it as they saw it, and importantly also weren't afraid to take sides in political conflicts; citizens themselves, they engaged in the public debate and trusted that their fellow citizens could make up their own minds.

Unfortunately, today such qualities are hard to find in 'professional' journalists - decades of sustained economic and political pressure have all but outlawed any individual thought processes which do not match those of their corporate masters. This is hidden behind an empty glorification of the principle of 'objectivity' (which in reality means getting quotes from both sides of politics, and shunning any evaluation of their statements) and an institutionalised disdain of the general citizenry as ignorant and unimportant - or indeed leads to the overall avoidance of complex and controversial topics in favour of populist, black-and-white caricatures of reality. 'Professional' journalists should be worried by the fact that more young Americans now get their political information from the avowed 'news parody' The Daily Show than from the mainstream television news bulletins, and that the Australian current affairs parody Real Stories is often virtually indistinguishable from the trash 'news' dished out by A Current Affair or Today Tonight. That's not to claim that by contrast all is wonderful in grassroots or citizen journalism, of course - but the multitude of opinions and debate of viewpoints which it provides in abundance is a clear indication of, and strong response to, all that's missing in our anaemic mainstream news today.

In reality, it's clear to anyone who is prepared to see it that mainstream journalism isn't a profession: it's an industry. And industrial journalism is subject to all the strengths and weaknesses of other industries - better access to funding and equipment, and more secure employment, but also the enshrinement of standards and routines, and the reliance of employees on corporate approval. By and large, the journalism industry is a lumbering dinosaur, slow to change its lifestyle even though its habitat is changing rapidly - innovation and evolution is likely to come from the edges rather than from the centres of journalism. In particular, it will come from those who rediscover that it is possible to be a journalist without wedding one's fate to the industry and its increasingly hollow claims to professionalism: it will come from those practitioners who understand that they can be both citizens and journalists, and be all the better for it.

It will come, too, from those who manage to combine the best of 'professional' journalistic traditions with the best of citizen journalism - sites such as OhmyNews come to mind. And here I do agree with James's concluding call to arms, but for exactly the opposite reason:

Let's have sites that are built on citizen media and far greater and more worthwhile interaction between readers, journalists and editors. It's a riveting and powerful development in the world of online news, information and entertainment,

yet rather than claiming like James that "it's not citizen journalism and nor will it ever be", let us finally accept that this engagement between citizens as journalists and journalists as citizens is precisely what citizen journalism should be all about.

Technorati : The Age, The Daily Show, citizen journalism, journalism, journalism profession
Del.icio.us : The Age, The Daily Show, citizen journalism, journalism, journalism profession