Acts of Journalism Revisited

An interesting topic that has been brought to attention in class as well as the discussion board has been that of “acts of journalism”. As of late, there seems to be a fine line between a journalist versus anyone else who deems an event worthy of discussion and sharing. In the Frontline Series “News Wars” a number of individuals are interviewed see this issue very differently. Creator of the incredibly popular blog The Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas, expressed that people no longer want to be passively involved with the news any longer – people are too educated and wish to be the ones contributing to the news networks, not simply sitting back and watching as mainstream media feeds the information along. On the other hand, the former editor of the Los Angeles Times Jason Carroll expressed concern that the crucial investigative methodology of journalists is being stamped out by individuals who “report” without any knowledge or training on how to go about retrieving appropriate information and facts. Yet, despite all the debate arising around these two sides of “acts of journalism”, I do not feel that there needs to be a clear black and white defined between the opinions, or that a defined line could even be drawn.

Both sides can have a lot to learn and to take from individuals who would rather be involved in news reporting, even if they do not have a degree to back up what they wish to convey. There are a number of people who may simply be passing by somewhere and an event may occur at that instant where that individual could take a picture when a professional news crew is simply not on hand. That person has an opportunity then to present that information to the world if they so desire. Even mainstream media organizations have recognized the potential for this information source. For example, on the BBC World News page is posted a “Contact Us” link with the captioning “Help us make the news, with your pictures, views, and stories”, specifically requesting people to contribute to the news. Yet, do “real” journalists take advantage of this input and extort it in a manner, without paying an individual for the information? A reporter in any agency could pick up a story via call-ins or even perusing blogs online, then go out themselves and perhaps claim the story as their own original idea without any regards to the individuals or places who tipped them off. Perhaps there is some official code in journalism against doing an act like that, such as a requirement to reference the obscure source somehow, or else not. Either way, I would not find it hard to believe that such a method is one manner that some reporters create their articles and reports. If everyday non-reporters are able to beat professionals to the punch, then hats off to them – but only if they are able to do so intelligently and thoroughly.

That thought frog leaps into the concerns of legitimate journalists. Yes, people can report on anything and everything they want online or even through alternate forums, but the lack of credentials is bothersome. There are many educated people who are willing to put in the time and effort to creating legitimate blog pieces that are encompassing and thorough, but on the other hand exist individuals who thread all of their “research” together with personal bias and headstrong opinions. For inexperienced readers browsing through online blogs, who is able to tell the difference between someone who has committed serious time to their piece with intelligence and lack of bias, versus the latter individual who can quite easily lead others astray who may relate on a personal basis to the author’s opinions. Just because common ground exists on a piece does not mean that the information is accurate and trustworthy. From that fear, I can understand why an educated professional reporter would take that information and then delve into the situation correctly and with the methodology that they have been trained to use, evolving a much more reasonable piece of news. Some bloggers maybe working subjectively, but that does not mean all of them are, and that is why real journalists are important, their work still very much relevant and needed. I feel that this shows neither side can be discredited – both the reporter and “fake” reporter have much to offer the public, let alone to one another.