Samuel Freedman, a Columbia University professor of Journalism, posts at the CBS.com blog, and joins in the citizen jolurnalism antihype. The interesting historical observations that he makes -- for example, that jounalism has long been considered an occupation, not a profession, until the industrial era grabbed it and turned into into an industry -- are overpowered by his desire to hold onto the teachings of the Church of Journalism:
[from Difference Between The Amateur And The Pro by Samuel Freedman]To its proponents, citizen journalism represents a democratization of media, a shattering of the power of the unelected elite, a blow against the empire of Big Brother. Citizen journalism does not merely challenge the notion of professionalism in journalism but completely circumvents it. It is journalism according to the ethos of indie rock ‘n’ roll: Do It Yourself.
For precisely such reasons, I despair over the movement’s current cachet. However wrapped in idealism, citizen journalism forms part of a larger attempt to degrade, even to disenfranchise journalism as practiced by trained professionals. As I said before, I appreciate the access that citizen journalism provides to first-hand accounts of major events. Yet I recognize those accounts are less journalism than the raw material, generated by amateurs, that a trained, skilled journalist should know how to weigh, analyze, describe, and explain.
I know full well how hard it is to defend traditional journalism today. The right and the left join in a critique that says there is no such thing as an unbiased, nonpartisan journalist and that only the despicable MSM, mainstream media, refuse to admit it. The failures of established news organizations justifiably lead to public skepticism. [...] When we fall short of our own professional standards, we lend support to the cynical or naïve presumption that journalism is something anybody can do.
[...]
Instead of providing the ultimate marketplace of ideas, however, cable TV and the Internet have become the ultimate amen corner, where nobody ever need encounter an opinion, much less a fact, that runs counter to what he or she already believes. To treat an amateur as equally credible as a professional, to congratulate the wannabe with the title “journalist,” is only to further erode the line between raw material and finished product. For those people who believe that editorial gate-keeping is a form of censorship, if not mind control, then I suppose the absence of any mediating intelligence is considered a good thing.
Oh, yes. It's a big echo chamber, we are only talking to ourselves, yada yada. Well, I am talking to you, Professor, and it's hooey.
Why don't you actually answer the big questions you raised? Is unbiased journalism in fact a myth, or not? You simply state that some of us belive that it is. Where is the "weigh, analyze, describe, and explain" method in that? Ditto with the "amen chamber" comments: where's the substantiated facts, instead of the innuendo that the Internet types are a bunch of self-seeking amateur conspiracy types?
And lastly, the comment that "When we fall short of our own professional standards, we lend support to the cynical or naïve presumption that journalism is something anybody can do" is an interesting logic exercise. Isn't it possible that the entire unraveling of public confidence in traditional media a structural problem, the inevitable outcome of organizationally-mediated journalism? Large organizations have complex interdependencies with other parts of the power structure, and cannot be unbiased. They have an inherent alliance with the elements of the status quo.
I don't believe it is cynicism or naïvete that leads me to believe that individuals, artisan journalists, can and do collectively provide a better source of insight into what is happening in today's world than so-called professionals. I reject your churchly arguments, and so are the thinking populace who are defecting to the Internet in droves, and reading blogs instead of the natterings of professionals. Those trained professionals whose scarcely concerned contempt for the average citizen's ability to reason for themselves -- yes, to weigh, analyze, describe, and explain -- has seldom been better exposed than in your post.
[pointer from Nothing and Some More]
Comments