Should citizen journalists be considered journalists

Twitter has become a tool for all, including the average Joe.

Ordinary people, or as we like to call them, “citizen journalists,” are posting about the Mumbai attacks, and Americans are following.

What constitutes a citizen journalist? The topic occasionally leads to discussions in my classes, and forces me to ask myself whether there is such a thing as a citizen journalist.

As thankful as I am for the Twitter feeds, cellphone images, and photographs pertaining to the attacks, citizen journalism is a convenient label.

Samuel Freedman, journalism professor and New York Times education columnist, states his opinion in a Poynter Institute post on the matter, "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."

What separates a post about the attacks from a post about somebody’s cat that can bark like a dog? By all means, I’m not equaling the events, but there is a line that appears to separate what is considered citizen journalism. Am I against people who post coverage of events? No, not at all. What I don’t agree with is the title they are given. Much like careers in medicine or law, I believe journalism is a profession, and the word “journalist” should be reserved for those whose careers are in the field.

Muslim author questions why media cover Al Qaeda

I wanted to blog about yesterday's New York Times' article on Al Qaeda releasing a video acknowledging America’s President-elect Barack Obama . Never have I been so infuriated by a topic in which a newspaper has covered. Yet, I wasn’t sure of the media angle to pursue. Well, I found it.

Written by Sumbul Ali-Karamal, author of The Muslim Next Door: The Qur’an, the Media and that Veil Thing, her post on Mediachannel.org questions why the media cover Al Qaeda and not other Muslim leaders.

Ali-Karamal writes, “We claim we do not negotiate with terrorists. We claim we are conducting a war on terror. And yet, at least since 9/11, we too often legitimize terrorists.”

Kudos to her! Why do the media feel it necessary to report Qaeda’s thoughts of America? In essence, should I be upset at the New York Time’s article content?

Or should I be more upset by the fact that the media relay Qaeda’s message of hating America? Is it important we know how they feel about us when we already know they hate us?

Ali-Karamal supports her post by citing examples of how the terrorist group receives more coverage than Muslim religious and political leaders. Why is that? Maybe it’s because the media report what they feel attract readers. According to the media, this subject matter is important because that’s what they are reporting. I admit, I was drawn to the article and read it to the end. Had the media not reported it, I would have never known how Qaeda felt about the President-elect.

The Times’ reporters write, “The video by Mr. Zawahri, an Egyptian doctor who has long been Al Qaeda’s second-ranking operative, contains no specific warning of an attack against the United States. But he tells his followers that America ‘continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses.’”

If anything, this article moves me to support the war until Qaeda can no longer exist. I’m not upset they reported this, but I do see the validity in Ali-Karamal’s post. America can do everything to ward off the zealous hatred, but it will never happen. President-elect Obama wants a timeline for America to leave Iraq. Sadly, I predict more coverage will be given to Qaeda and their happiness in us leaving.

Jumping the Gun

In what should have been a major headline in every paper across the country, Georgia's Rockdale Citizen newspaper appears to have almost committed a crime. The paper placed Obama's accomplishment of winning the election below the fold and with what seems to be smallest head count on the entire front page.

In response to the criticism the paper has received in blogs and from the public, the Rockdale responds, "When our readers went to bed Tuesday night, they knew that Obama had been elected their next president. What they did not know was who had been elected commission chairman [...] elected sheriff [...] elected to the board of education [...] elected clerk of courts and [...] elected to the board of commissioners. Our responsibility is to serve our readers, and those stories comprised the news package that led our front page."

What's surprising is that the editorial continues on to explain that none of the blogs commenting on the issue bothered to call the paper and ask why they formatted the front page as they did.

Had readers known the paper's focus to begin with, maybe there would not have been as much criticism as there currently is. I find this disheartening. It's an instance where as much as bloggers want to be thought of credible journalists, they received wind of a story and ran to publish it. Or maybe I'm being harsh, because it's the blogs that are criticizing the paper. Either way, a majority of us are quick to judge and some favor newspaper journalism over blogging.

Research suggests link between teen pregnancy and racy sitcoms

A study released Monday suggests a link between teens that watch sexually explicit TV shows and pregnancy.

To be more specific, these teens were twice as likely as those who had limited exposure to these shows.

Published by the nonpartisan, nonprofit RAND Corp., researchers are quick to point out that factors may lead to pregnancy, and TV may be one of them.

“We were surprised to find this link,” said behavioral scientist Anita Chandra, the study’s lead author.

While yes, TV may be a factor, I don't think it should come as a surprise. What should come as a surprise is that this study is supposedly one of the first of its kind. Also, I'm not sure I believe there is as much of a likelihood as the findings suggest. Too many factors contribute to pregnancy for the cause to be narrowed to one, two, or even three reasons.

If a teen or adolescent is going to engage in sexual behaviors, he or she will. Sometimes the media is given too much credit, and this is one of them. While TV does contain racy sitcoms, should they feel responsible for the way teenagers behave? No. Some may say media educates, but parents ultimately need to be the ones to educate their children about sex and the consequence of that behavior.

70 percent of Americans believe journalists want Obama to win

I've been thinking of the media's current represention of both candidates and how the media is viewed liberal.

Just how many people believe the media is biased towards to the candidates?

According to the Pew Research Center, "By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4."

Eight percent of Americans say there isn't favoritism among journalists, and thirteen percent say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.

What's so surprising about this poll is that the margin is significantly higher than in previous elections. As compared to the 2004 election, the margin was 50%-22%, democrat to republican.

I think the media is doing a decent job at representing both candidates. Yes, sometimes there is the occasional misrepresentation, but that opinion can go either way.

If you read a recent column by Slate's “nonliberal” Jack Schafer, you’ll discover his view of working in the liberally dominated profession and why he’s not complaining. While a majority of reporters and editors are liberal, Schafer, a political minority at Slate, points that conservatives fill the commentariat in the way liberals fill mainstream reporting.

In Schafer's "The Liberal Media and How to Stop it," he writes, “The best press criticism isn't a column or a moan of disgust into a TV camera. It's writing a better story.”

If conservatives think there is a media bias towards liberal candidates and ideas, then they need to be writing the stories as well. Maybe then the American view of journalists will decrease that 61 percent candidate difference.