Most of the time we’d get handwritten letters going on about the weather and spaghetti dinners at the fire hall. It truly was mind-numbing stuff, then one day a letter came across my desk describing a shootout between feuding in-laws on a local ranch. Nobody had been killed, but after doing some digging, I found that one person had been injured and more than 30 rounds had been fired between four people.

Journalists work hard to find stories, but sometimes you’ve got to rely on community members to steer you in the right direction. Sometimes it’s old ladies writing letters, others readers, listeners and viewers (depending on which type of media you are in) uploading videos, writing blogs, making comments and sending tweets.

Citizen journalism can be a useful tool, but it can cross into the realm of irresponsible muckraking quickly, as we’ve seen recently with so-called “citizen journalists” posing as a pimp and a prostitute and going into ACORN offices asking all kinds of ridiculous questions.

Did the people on the video cross the line? Absolutely, but you can’t tell me that those were the only ACORN employees they spoke to. Where are the videos of the ones who sent you away? Where are the videos of the people who called the police on you?

You see, people who act as “citizen journalists” do so most of the time because they’ve got an agenda to push. Rarely is the content submitted by users in any way fair or balanced, as Fox News is so fond of saying. What you get instead is millions of angry voices all shouting about whatever issue it is they think is important.

While members of the media are still trying to figure out just what to do with user-generated content, many in the industry believe it should be kept separate from stories produced by professional journalists.

Alfred Hermida, writing on the blog MediaShift, has a different idea. He believes that professional journalists are working against the public interest by acting as gatekeepers, filtering user-generated content into its own section, all while cherry-picking the best tips from the audience and doing their own stories.

Hermida believes that the best news is that which is unfiltered, coming directly from the source and says that the mainstream stems that flow out of self-interest, accusing journalists of fearing that they’ll become obsolete in the face of user-generated content and “citizen journalists.” To that end, he says that the professional media should start viewing audience members not as contributors but as collaborators.

Call me an elitist, but I don’t think that posting a pictures from her iPhone makes Sally Soccer Mom a journalist any more than singing in the shower makes me a rock star.

That’s not to say that I think there isn’t a very important place for content generated by the audience. Many media outlets have come along way in recent years toward building a community around their product on the Web. Readers debate topics (sometimes very crudely) in the comments section, they submit audio, video and pictures and sometimes even do guest blog entries or send tips using tools like Twitter.

So why shouldn’t content gathered by any old slob with a camera phone and a YouTube account be considered journalism?:

1. Media outlets have a responsibility to act as narrator and moderator to their communities.

If the recent Tea Party protests have taught us anything, it’s that sheer volume — no matter how seemingly schizophrenic and nonsensical — can drown out reason the media doesn’t offer context to the goings on.

How much traction, for example, would the birthers, deathers, truthers and the like have gotten if the media wasn’t there to investigate the issue properly and offer evidence in a reasonable fashion? Do we really want a fourth estate ruled by Orly Taitz?

The media in this country has evolved from the early days of the Republic when the press was highly partisan (although looking at Fox News and MSNBC, you might not know that.) In any case, the job of the media has become to act as a watchdog and when you just have a bunch of people with agendas slinging mud at each other, the truth gets lost in the white noise. Which brings me to my next point…

2. Professional journalists can discern what is and what isn’t really news.

It’s what the old-timers call news judgment and its one of the most important skills a journalist can possess. I used to have a lady call me every time her dog ran away (which was like every freaking week) wanting me to write a story about it. I know that it was very important to her that little fluffy got out again but was it more important than the murder trial going on?

The point is, there has to be someone out there saying which stories should get play and which shouldn’t. If you have a million different people submitting a million different stories, how are you going to wade through all that to find the stuff that’s important to you?

3. Unmoderated user-generated content is an avalanche of lawsuits waiting to happen.

I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve had people try to pass things along as facts to support their argument that turned out to be misunderstandings at best and outright lies at worst. As a journalist, it was my job to double-check up on what people are saying to make sure it’s true.

Had these videos of ACORN employees been taken to a responsible media outlet instead of Fox News, reporters would have done some leg work, contacting appropriate sources to provide some context. It would have been made clear that although what the employees did on tape did was shady, there were others who didn’t break the rules.

I’d like to know what percentage of ACORN employees approached by these conservative activists broke the rules. Was it a majority? Was it a handful? What would have been the proper procedure for dealing with people posing as a pimp and a prostitute? You see, all of these questions would have been answered by a professional journalist interested in the truth. Instead, we got a “citizen journalist” pushing an agenda colluding with a cable network which is all too happy to broadcast something that casts aspersions on the President, liberals, Democrats and poor, black people.

4. It’s not a job that can be done part-time.

During the recent electoral protests in Iran we relied heavily on reports from people on the ground with Twitter and other blogging tools. Ten years ago, we would never have even known what was going on. Citizen journalism is a vastly important tool, but it’s important that we take those reports and run them through the filter of the professional media.

What is the government of Iran saying? What are Iran experts in our government saying? These are not points of view you’re going to get from citizen journalists and they are vital to understanding the entire issue.

5. Without all the facts, any story can be spun, any reader can be manipulated.

Hermida asserts that the truth can be found in the unfiltered submissions of citizen journalists. Well anyone with half a brain knows that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle of opposing sides of an argument. It is the journalists job to find that truth by talking to multiple sources on every side of an issue.

When only one point-of-view is presented, as would inevitably happen with a user-driven media, you’d see an even worse polarization in media consumption than we do today with the rise of Fox News, MSNBC, etc.

Decision makers in the media are still trying to figure out the best way to handle increased interaction with their audience, so I’m sure this argument will continue to evolve over time, especially as technology makes it easier for users to submit information over the Web.

Does the media have a responsibility to the community it covers? Sure. Every story, however, does not demand equal coverage. Professional journalists are trained to decide which issues are more important than others. Should they rely on input from their readers about what they believe deserves coverage? Absolutely, but ultimately the decision should fall on those qualified to make that determination.

Relying too heavily on citizen journalism would only put us on a path where those who scream the loudest gets the most coverage. The media’s role is to rise above the clamor and tell the story. Let’s hope it’s continued to allow to do so.

All six of us worked at the newspaper, so the horror we felt in watching the 9/11 attacks unfold quickly turned into feverish discussions about how we would cover this.

How would we localize this story? Who would we talk to? What would we do for art? We were in a working state of mind and didn’t take time to process what was happening around us. I’ve said it before, I still feel guilty about that.

It wasn’t until nearly a month later when several of us went to New York City to do a series of follow-up stories, that the weight of the event truly hit me.

After interviewing sources at NYU and Columbia, we got off the Subway downtown to meet up with the rest of our group. As soon as we hit the street we noticed that the air was still heavy with ash and smoke. More than a month after the buildings collapsed, people were still walking around wearing surgical-style masks. There were memorials all over the streets, overflowing with pictures, flowers, stuffed animals and handwritten letters to victims of the attacks.

Finally, we made our way to the top of an adjacent building and were able to see the World Trade Center site. We all just sat there in silence, watching crews cleaning up debris. The enormity of the site, how big those buildings really were, wasn’t apparent to me until I saw the gigantic dump trucks moving up and down the ramps.

One of the things that always strikes me about New York is the noise. The street musicians, the car horns, the people talking. There’s always so much going on.

In those days following the 9/11 attacks, I don’t remember hearing any of that. Maybe it was me. Maybe it was the city. I remember having fun being in the city with my friends, but I also remember kind of walking around in a dull haze. I’m sure we all still feel the pain of that day, but the anguish those poor people in New York must have gone through and are still suffering is something we can never fully understand.

Next week, ABC News will cover a town hall meeting from the White House where Barack Obama plans to discuss health care. It will be a policy meeting where Obama will field questions on his proposed health care policies. Presumably, both supporters and skeptics will have a chance to speak.

Sean Hannity, among other outspoken pundits on Fox News, think this is nothing more than an infomercial for health care policies they don’t agree with disseminated by a complicit media outlet under the guise of news to a public not saavy enough to know when someone is feeding them a line. So basically, they’re accusing ABC News of being copycats.

It’s not the opinions expressed on Fox News that offends me so much, I believe there’s a place in the media for all voices, even those as disgusting as some of the garbage pettled by the likes of Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity. Government, business and social leaders need a strong, dissenting voice, and these days we’re sure as heck not getting it from MSNBC.

That said, the twisted nature of Fox News’ reports, pushing obviously biased reports off as news, twisting comments and spinning news and then turning around and calling themselves “Fair and Balanced” or telling people they’re in a “No Spin Zone” flies in the face of every principle we’re sworn to uphold as journalists. It’s fine to have an opinion, it’s fine to express that opinion, but don’t insult your viewers by misleading them.

Fox News was the originator of this style of so-called journalism and to their credit they’re very good at it. This unabashed fanboy attitude towards the Republican Party that was so evident during the Bush years and most recently during the Tea Bagging protests during tax season has served them well, but let’s be clear, they are hugely responsible for the death of journalism they’re not decrying.

They can cry about ABC or MSNBC or the New York Times being biased all they want, but they got the ball rolling. Journalism is vastly different than it was 20 years ago and that is in large part to Fox News. Now is the fact that it’s a different game now necessarily bad? That remains to be seen. But Fox News’ cries about journalism being dead, all the while playing a fiddle like some modern day version of Nero with better hair and a bleached smile, as they watch the fire they created consume the noble profession die are hypocritical at best, delusional at worst.

The fact that the journalism industry (particularly broadcast), regardless of where each outlet falls on the political spectrum, is trending towards the biased, gotcha journalism that Fox News helped develop, makes me sad for my colleagues who strive to do it right each day, and scared for my country, which will suffer the consequences.

Now, watch this video to see what I mean.

Fox’s hypocritical attack on ABC News

About a year ago the wife and I were hanging out with a friend from college and her husband in Cleveland. She and the husband both work for a large paper there and as is always the case these days when journalists gather over soda, the discussion turned to the state of journalism.

It was a scary time then, and although the massacre that we’ve seen over the past weeks and months hadn’t started just yet, we all saw the writing on the wall.

“A generation ago, people became journalists with the intention of doing that for the rest of their lives,” she said. “We could never hope to have that.”

Today, we found out that another paper has succumb to the weight of declining subscriptions, shrinking advertising revenue and increased production costs. It’s official, the Ann Arbor News will cease production in July. A new product, AnnArbor.com will take its place with a seven day a week online product. Additionally, they will put out a print product on Thursday and Sunday in addition to a weekly TMC advertising supplement. Everyone who currently works there have been invited to apply for jobs at the new publication. How kind of them.

In addition, other Booth newspapers — the Flint Journal, Bay City Times and Saginaw News — are going to a thrice-weekly print format. All papers are laying off staff. The ones who get to keep their jobs will take a pay cut and see their benefits reduced.

I read an article the other day that equated what we are going through now to what buggy-makers must have felt like when the automobile was gaining popularity. Many buggy makers changed their business model and started producing parts for cars while others stubbornly resisted and eventually went out of business.

We’re seeing a monumental shift in the way people get their information. Broadcast seems — at least from where I’m sitting — to be doing much better. Granted, their advertising revenue is down and they’ve been forced to lower rates. That’s why we all know who Vince from ShamWow! is. There’s no way those guys would have been able to afford spots in prime time 10 years ago. But I digress.

It’s on us, who are still committed to journalism and are young enough to be agile in this changing world, to figure out what the next business model is going to be. How can we continue to do the job the public has entrusted us with — the fourth estate, as it were — and make it a viable business.

Nobody has figured it out yet. All we know is that putting the news on the Web costs a hell of a lot less than printing it. For one, you don’t have to pay all the pressmen and delivery people. You also don’t have to pay for paper and ink, which besides wages and benefits, is probably the biggest cost-savings.

There will be plenty of time to talk business, we should spend today being sad, mourning the loss of another institution. Say what you will about the viability of broadcast and online media versus print, where do you think television reporters and bloggers get their stories in the first place?

I don’t really know what else to say. It’s just a scary, scary time.

I won’t deny it, I’d much rather be working in a Congressman’s office on Capitol Hill right now than sitting in a cubicle in Detroit thinking of ways to un-stodgify our Web site. That said, our job here as journalists (aw, who am I kidding? I’m not a journalist, I just make Web sites.) Anyway, our job here as journalists isn’t to be experts on the subjects we cover, it’s to talk to the experts in an effort to convey a story. If Brent Snavely were an expert in the music industry, he’d be in L.A. making millions, not sitting in Detroit making $60k to talk to local studio owners. It’s a fine line we walk between covering an event and being part of it ourselves, but it’s one we have to be clear about.

A great many in my profession are are wanna-bes. From the sports writers waxing sentimental in the press box about their glory days on the high school gridiron to the political pundits screaming on the morning shows about how they could create policy some much better than our elected leaders. Many journalists got into this business out of a pure love for journalism, but so many of us do it just to get closer to the people we want to be like. People don’t go into journalism because they enjoy a life of anonymity. We all want to be rock stars, politicians or famous athletes, yet our God-given talent is one for words (and often times, typing fast.) If given the opportunity, the “call-up” as it were, to go from the life of an observer to one as a participant, most of us would jump at the chance. I’m no different, a big perk of being a student-journalist was getting into concerts for free. Add that to the fact that you sometimes run into famous people and that sometimes people on the street recognize you (for better or worse,) and I was hooked. Once in, I developed a real love for journalism, but I’d be lying if I said I had some Woodward and Bernstein-esque aspirations as an 18-year-old freshman covering men’s soccer at EMU.

With that in mind, let’s get back to the government. Let me just say that I think it’s a smart policy on the part of the government to include the experts in any number of fields when making policy decisions. If you’re going to give a speech signaling a policy shift with regards to the middle east, for example, I think it’s a great idea to bring in college professors who study this region, former high-ranking ex-patriots whose former countries will be affected, etc. I do not think, however, that it is a smart idea to bring in journalists or pundits in an attempt to gauge how well your policy shifts are going to play, especially if it is done under the pretense that said journalists think they’re helping or advising in some other way.

All right, so now that you’ve suffered through my rant, I suppose it’s only proper that I let you know exactly what it is that has me so riled up. This article from The Washington Post says that some leading journalists, including Bill Krystol (editor of the Weekly Standard) and Columnist Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post both said they consulted with members of the Bush administration on themes for the coming administration and on ideas for last week’s inaugural address. Both insist they didn’t cross the line, but this is an issue that gets more contentious each day as journalist after journalist, from print and broadcast, admit to taking money from the administration to promote government programs, including No Child Left Behind and the federal Marriage Protection Act. Scandals like that of Jayson Blair, the former New York Times reporter who was found to be simply making up stories, damaged our reputation as the fourth estate enough in recent years, the last thing we need is to be seen as the the lackeys to the government’s Scott Farkas.

In what would seem to be a reaction to recent events that have shed a negative light on journalists, this story scares the living daylights out of me. It seems that one in three high school students think that press freedoms in America go too far. Thirty-six percent of high school students think the press should get government approval before publishing stories. We already live with an administration that seems intent on limiting the voice of the media, either by shutting them down or by co-opting them and making them puppets. If that trend continues with the next administration, by the time this generation is in power, the media could be in some real trouble.

Fortunately, I think maturity and education will temper some of those attitudes towards the media. In addition, people like these kids will fight the good fight to keep the media in this country truly free.

Anyway, one time in particular, I had written a column calling a Rabbi in Florida ridiculous when said his parishioners were inconsolable because they were confused by the ballots and think they accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan. One person, who appeared to be a Hassidic Jew, took particular offense and shouted at me that I was anti-Semitic before he spit on me. It was quite traumatizing, but had I not grown up as a typical child, dealing with name-calling idiots, I think I would have been much more traumatized.

That brings me to my point. Did you see this? First, let me preface this by saying that I don’t advocate gay-bashing or anything like that. I don’t think it’s fair that kids get picked on because they’re different because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or handicap. That said, I think it’s imperative that we allow kids to be kids. Dealing with people who don’t like you, and tell you so to your face, is an essential part of socialization. It’s important that adults teach themes of tolerance and inclusion, but trying to enforce a doctrine that is so clearly against the nature of childhood behavior is ludicrous.

We’ve got enough whiny bitches in this country, crying every time they don’t get their way and suing every time someone makes them upset. Allowing our kids to grow up never having to deal with, even in small part, the unpleasant nature of humans, is only going to be a detriment to their personal well-being, and the well-being of our society as a whole. There is no “no name calling week” for adults. Bullies, meanness, anger and name-calling are facts of life. Kids can learn it when they’re young, or they can deal with as adults when they have access to things like guns, knives and motor vehicles. Think about it.

Here is our email exchange:

——————–

You’re kidding, right?

I may not agree with your politics, but I support you, nay, I encourage you, to tell me and everyone else all you can about why I should vote for your guy. The problem is, when you write things like this column, you cloud people’s view of the situation. How are your readers supposed to make an informed decision when all you provide them with is 15 inches of name-calling and conspiracy theories?

I’m amazed that your editor didn’t challenge you on this column. It’s your duty as a columnist to provide commentary backed up with solid facts. More importantly, it’s their job to call you out on the carpet when you don’t do that. Today, you both failed.

——————–

I apologize for the delay in my response but no I was not kidding in any respect. First of all Senator Kerry was not “my guy” as you so astutely put it. Senator Kerry was simply the only other realistic option in this election. I feel that my column more than any other I’ve read in this publication is honest. I pride myself on saying things bluntly as to not confuse anyone. It is my choice to disagree with a man who I believe is an absolute fool, if someone happens to agree with me then so be it. You called some of what I wrote a conspiracy theory. That’s fine. I simply see it as legitamate questions that need to be considered. When I write something like that it is not out of some petty hatred for Bush or any other politician but a genuine concern that the makings of massive cover-up should not be ignored. History has shown time and again that money and power are capable of corrupting all types of people. Lastly, my duty as a columnist is not dictated by you or anyone else but myself. I write about issues that are important to me and I attempt to shed some light on them for people who may be interested. It is up to the reader to decide for themselves. I present the facts as best as I can but in the end you have to remember that it is an opinions column and not a hard news story. Freedom of speech is quite possibly the greatest gift that this country has and by writing such an article I feel that I succeding in voicing my opinion just as you have done with this email. Thanks for the feedback.

D-bag columnist

——————–

D-bag columnist (not his real name and not really the way I addressed him),

First, let me apologize for the brusque tone of my first message. I don’t necessarily want to argue about the message you conveyed by attacking Bush, as it’s most definitely not part of the greater point, but by saying “Don’t vote for candidate A,” you are implicitly endorsing candidate B. Me saying “your guy” only referred to that notion. It was not meant to imply that you were endorsing Kerry, but as someone who speaks to the public, you have to understand the inherent arguments that arise in a two-party system, and the message your readers will infer when you discuss politics.

That said, there is virtue in being straight-forward. Please understand, my contention with your column had little to do with the tone, although I think part of the reason members of the Democratic party scared away so many voters in the Midwest and south is because so many of their high-profile supporters had a proclivity to do nothing but wax conspiratorial and call names. My problem, and the reason I wrote you in the first place, was because the content of your column strayed so far left of center, into Oliver Stone movie territory, that it did nothing to support the cause of getting John Kerry elected, or in your case, to get George W. Bush defeated. We expect such behavior from the likes of Martin Sheen and Michael Moore, but as a student-journalist, trying to learn how to be a productive and responsible member of the media, I’d expect better from you.

As I said before, you have a right to express whatever opinion you see fit. With that right, however, comes a duty to your readers. It is your responsibility not only to dictate your opinion, but to speak to them in an informed and responsible manner. These are the vows we take as journalists and they are standards we should strive to live up to with every word we write. If you think the President started the war in Iraq to serve his private interests show me some evidence. Don’t just make wild-eyed accusations and then change the subject as you did in the column in question. By doing that, you’re not going to provide any help to your side and will only give ammunition to your enemies. These are the things your editors, the faculty advisor and your professors should be teaching you.

It’s all a learning process, however, and I’m confident that given time and practice, you and your editors will learn, just as the rest of us did.

regards,

Rusty Shackleford

So that begs the question, what the hell is going on with me? Why do I, of all people, keep getting inquiries for jobs when, in all honesty, I’m not really looking. My resume is out there, but that’s it. I’m not out seeking anything, they keep coming to me. I honestly don’t think I’m that good, yet the inquiries pour in at a clip of one or two per week. This should make me feel good, but it doesn’t. I don’t think I deserve to be sought out. That aside, I’ll be applying for that job in Arkansas along with the editor slot at the paper in Allentown, Penn. that I was contacted about Wednesday.

You can obviously see that I have a very heightened sense of self right now, can’t you? Girls can have that affect on a guy.

Anyway, I voted for Bush based purely on foreign policy. I knew the Republicans controlled the House and would continue to do so, but the Senate is split, and everything I read said that it would remain so. A lot of, nay, most of, Bush’s domestic policies fall on the opposite side of the fence from my points of view, but I thought the upper chamber of the legislature would keep the far right from going too crazy up there on Capitol Hill. With Daschle losing and the Republicans picking up another seat in Louisiana, they are solidly in control. Top that with the fact that almost every state that had the option approved measures to ban gay marriage, it’s shaping up to be a frightening time if you’re not a member of the religious right.

Personally, I’m socially liberal. I’m pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. I think criminals in jail for drugs need more counseling and less incarceration, I think marijuana should be legalized and restrictions on guns tightened. Essentially, I prefer a conservative leader and a liberal legislature. After all, they’re the ones making the laws.

In slightly better news, I arrived to work this morning to find an email from a woman who is starting a weekly newspaper aimed at 20-somethings in southeastern Pennsylvania. She saw my resume on journalismjobs.com and emailed me. She said my resume and experience would make me “an outstanding candidate for this job.” I’m sending my stuff in this afternoon. How great is this? I’m so nervous, but this is definitely the move back into journalism that I’m looking for. It combines everything that I enjoy doing: management, hands-on newspaper work and Web development. I can’t wait to get the application process rolling. Philadelphia, here I come!