Michael calls it:

A very poorly thought through analysis of citizen reportage. I’ll have comments in this week’s insider review but in the meantime feel free to count the fallacies.

I like Michael. Don’t really know him, but I’ve read his posts and watched his portal of citizen journalists develop. My respect for what he is accomplishing is high. The idea is innovative and Michael, along with his cadre of volunteers and staff, are helping change the online collaborative world. They are challenging ‘mainstream media’ (MSM).

That said, I am still not sold on ‘citizen journalism’ – but, maybe I just don’t ‘get it’ from the converted point of view. This whole discussion has many variables and factors. I’m just addressing a few here.

The guest column he refers to is rather short. The author, James Harkin, is not identified, except by name. Perhaps it is this James Harkin who “is a consultant forecaster at the Social Issues Research Centre. He holds a degree in law from King’s College London and an M. Phil. degree in politics from Oxford University. Between 1996 and 1999 he taught politics at Oxford University, where he researched ideas of risk within contemporary society.”

Michael, I agree that Harkins’ viewpoint in The Times may be myopic – and even a bit paranoid. That viewpoint could fulfill/mirror some fears we may suspect the MSM has toward citizen journalism. Harkins’ commentary is brief, however. I’d like to see his full views. I also look forward to Michael’s commentary on the piece.

In this discussion, I hope we do not lose sight of certain fair and valid concerns. One is that a citizen journalist may bring personal, even passionate, twists to any story they report and there are no checks and balances to catch these the way we have them in newsrooms. Is there really a need for more ‘tell me what I want to hear’ journalism? Doesn’t Fox do enough, for example?

This agenda setting function won’t happen in all instances, but – without editors, without detached viewpoints – the ability to tell the difference (sort out the ‘agendas’) is left up to skepticism by each and every reader of citizen journalism.

Now, some of you will say that this happens with MSM, too. OK, I agree. But, MSM offers checks and balances that some/many/all (?) citizen journalism efforts do not provide. Skepticism is still required even when reading MSM, too.

Have some MSM reporters and editors failed us? Yes. Do some of those reporters have agendas? Yes, some do. But, I believe the quandry will happen more often with citizen journalism than in MSM. Further, the relationships between Michael and his contributors can in no way be described as the same of those that share a newsroom. Can they? The geographical separation, relative anonymity, and more seem to pose very real obstacles to credibility.

One example. In NowPublic recently, I noted that “bubbles” was one of “These people (that had) just changed the news”. “bubbles” has been “reporting from All locations since February, 2005″, says the site.

The goofy nickname aside, what do we ‘really’ know about ‘bubbles’? Other ‘citizen journalists’ that have changed the news include Vancouver’s Petunia and Boston’s FengWei. Who are they? Why in the world would I believe one word they write?

My hope is, and I pray Michael agrees, that trust in an outlet like The Times is higher than in the reports of citizen journalists. It may be changing, but we have a long way to go if we are ever going to reach that level of trust. Editors give me the reason to trust more in their (MSM) content than NowPublic’s – or any other citizen journalism effort. How much oversight does NowPublic have on the content being posted by their participants? How often do these editorial efforts occur at NowPublic?

MSM is trying to monetize and incorporate new media opportunities/practices. Even our local paper is staring to recruit bloggers. There are problems in that scenario, too.

Still, unless I truly feel I know the writer/author, I don’t know that I will ever trust any blog, site or citizen journalist as much as I trust The Times or The New York Times – even the Opelika-Auburn News. And, the main reason for that trust is – the editors and the (more often than not) dispassionate approach of their reporters. There are agendas everywhere. I believe there are fewer – with regard to slanting the news, especially – in MSM than there are in citizen journalism. Just MHO.

We will have incidences of other ‘problems’ with citizen journalism, too. The Flickr posted photos we saw during the London bombings? Any chance some of those were altered? If not in this news event, what about future events? Anyone honestly believe we won’t see those types of things happening in ‘citizen journalism’? Anyone believe that everything written in OhMyNews, WikiNews, Wikipedia, OurMedia and Bayosphere is completely trustworthy, error free and legitimate un-biased news? (Ooops! Forgot to list IndyMedia, too.)

I look forward to Michael’s post critiquing The Times’ commentary. Perhaps I’ll learn more about just what a citizen journalist really is. We have a long way to go before that is defined sufficiently for everyone’s comfort level.

By the way, this report was filed ‘live from the field’ in Gulf Shores, Alabama. Not much hurricane damage here. Well, plenty left over from Ivan, but not Dennis. Our hearts go out to Pensacola and the other affected areas from this most recent storm.