Dan Gillmor’s second half of his book, confirms what I see is one of the biggest challenges to building reputation and improving credibility of citizen journalism: the lack of editorial input. (As a matter of fact, even the pros need all the editorial help they can get).
In today’s new media, there is room and demand for news accounts that don’t follow established editorial formats of the “Big Media,” but most blogs suffer without that structure. And that’s a benefit that professional journalists can enjoy and continue to use to their best advantage to distinguish themselves from other news sources.
Another threat to the trust and credibility efforts of grassroots journalism is curbing the spread of misinformation and deception. New Yorker cartoonist Peter Steiner cleverly captures in his “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” cartoon the challenge with anonymity on the Web and what Gillmor argues is a serious problem when those who participate in online discussions needlessly choose to wear that cloak. Again, that is not to say that professional journalists and their employers don’t face similar issues or aren’t offenders themselves. HBO’s quasi-veridical drama series The Wire brilliantly addressed, among others, that specific mass media issue in its final season. But, in general, a higher level of scrutiny (both legally mandated and ethically enforced) usually keeps the pros in check. However, the same can’t be said of citizen journalists.
At the end of Gillmor’s chapter titled “Here Comes the Judges (and Lawyers),” the author aptly asks: “Does this mean journalists will be licensed someday?” Some would argue that the field of journalism in the U.S. doesn’t need such regulatory measures or special professional licensing system. But why not? Much of the rest of the world requires that journalists be licensed, the same way accountants and surgeons are. So would this create a form elitism of the profession? Perhaps, but in a way, licenses would help professional journalists protect not only themselves, but their own craft — especially in a day and age where anyone can claim to be able to do what professionals have been so skillfully trained to do. We can all learn from each other in a new open source media format, but the bar has to be set high if we want to maintain the elevated quality of discourse that inspires rather than sullies.
Gillmore then explores the precarious world of copyright law, which he does a great job explaining how complicated, ridiculous, and flawed it is. Having worked closely with attorneys on copyright issues, I can attest firsthand that the current laws leave much to interpretation and chance — much like our tax laws. It’s almost impossible to rest completely assured that one has covered all the basis in protecting published works on the Internet. But kudos to Gillmor for his fresh approach on protecting his own work. His adoption of Creative Commons Copyright is a fantastic example of how the author respects the consumer and truly puts his money where his mouth is. I did not purchase a copy of “We the Media,” as it was offered free of charge online, but after reading and understanding the rationale for the author’s decision on choosing “Some Rights Reserved” versus “All Rights Reserved,” I feel compelled to support Gillmor. I just wish he would put a “tip jar” on his Web site.
September 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm
As you know, the history of journalism in the US closely parallels blogging. Many journalists started out as mere citizens. As money and power became key factors in newspaper publishing, owners sought to legitimize the field by professionalizing it.
It’s worth looking into the history of the mass media to see if we can draw parallels- and avoid hysteria and hyperbole.
I’m a huge fan of the Wire- good reference.