Keen's book addresses a multitude of concerns as to how the internet is ruining American culture but in regards to citizen journalism, he vehemently introduces concerns over the excess of information and the threat it poses on American democracy. Amateurs threaten the marketplace and detract from mainstream, reputable sources. Keen says that finances and training are at the base of good journalism, so while the internet provides a "soapbox" for any and everyone, the tools needed to create good news are lacking and so the information that is being spread is corrupt and inaccurate. Furthermore, Keen says that the information is highly biased and sensational, posing as news when it is really entertainment. Keen touches on the layman's ability to self publish as a danger because it introduces alot of misinformation into the market, making it more difficult for people to reach accurate information. Keen devalues citizen journalism's efforts to slay the major media industry "Goliaths" as he proposes that such intervention is not needed.

While I do not agree with Keen's argument I think his book illuminates a popular and partially true opinion about citizen journalism and journalists or "amateurs bloated with hot air" as he so eloquently puts it. Keen's point of attack is really credibility, which I think is a valid one. It is true that professional journalists are more liable in the court of law than amateur journalists are but I think this speaks more to the fact that the law hasn't caught up to the digital age, to this new space that exists outside of our physical world. One thing that Keen does agree with advocates of citizen journalism on is that this new type of journalism speaks to niche markets. Keen however debunks the importance of such markets; "...professional journalists can go to jail for telling the truth; amateurs talk to each other about their cars." Keen forces contemplation of whether or not the nature of news should be to inform or to converse. Questions of the quality of political discourse arise, which really comes down to whether or not more is better or if more is just more. Reading Keen's aritcle has made it clear that I will have to clearly distinguish the difference between entertainment/recreational blogging and legitimate citizen journalism. Keen seems to oscillate between criticizing "the amateur bloggers wax on trivial subjects like their favorite brand of breakfast cereal, or make of a car, or reality television personality" and blogs & websites with missions of informing the public of news worthy subjects that are not portrayed in the mainstream. Also, it could hardly be argued that all "news" in the mainstream is newsworthy. Ultimately, I think Keen's piece is necessary as it is a popular argument and so a relevant one. I would like to use his commentary on citizen journalism as a framework for debunking common myths.

 

"Powerlaws, Weblogs and Inequality." Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet - Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source. 8 February 2003. .

While the internet does have the potential to give a voice to all who are digitally connected, what purpose does it serve if that voice is never heard or if it is not heard by a robust audience? Shirky speaks about the audience distribution of blogs, with 12% of blogs accounting for 50% of the web trafficing in the webworld. The popular belief that the blog world eliminates hierarchical power structures and systems of inequality is debunked. Shirky's basic argument is "Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality." All blogs can not be equally popular all the time. What's more is that the more popular a blog, the less conversational it becomes as it becomes more difficult to maintain personal relationships with subscribers. Instead of being a conversation forum, it becomes a one-way point of entry into information.Conversational blogs then become the "long tail" of blogs, those blogs with few subscribers that can neatly facilitate interactive experiences between blog subscriber and blogger.

This article begs two questions when discussing citizen journalism (in blog format or website format): 1) should news be conversational #2) does citizen journalism threaten the same discriminatory hierachies that originally catapulted news blogs? In Andrew Keen's book, "Cult of the amateur: how the internet is killing today's culture" he insists that news is not meant to be conversational, objectional reporting is not something to be discussed and weighed in on. Media professionals are meant to act as gatekeepers to newsworthy information, society has entrusted them with this responsibility and such a responsibility is not to be infringed upon by everyone's uinformed and even informed opinions. Centralized power exists to maintain accuracy and order but the internet is based on decentralized power.

Also, if the popularity of news blogs is a result of the mainstream media's abuse of power, do online blogs threaten to recreate these same power structures and consequentially the same abuses? Theories purported by Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrell suggest that this is unlikely. Accroding to Drezner and Farrell, the news blogs often do not just serve as news resources but also as part of a checks and balances system for the mainstream. Therefore, their position in the news world is fostered in relation to the mainstream media's abuse of power.

 

Shirky's book discusses the rise of amateurism, covering everything from collective thought and publishing (i.e. Wikepedia) to the ways in which digital technology (i.e. phone and email) has transposed itself into real world law and interactions. In his chapter, "Everyone is a Media Outlet"  Shirky discusses the definition of professionalism and how it relates to certain professions. His argument is that the internet has upset the very foundation of certain professions (i.e. photography, journailsm). By definition, professionals do not exist in mass. Not everyone is a professional photographer just because they take a picture, just like not everyone is  journalist because they convey information to the public, even if it is newsworthy information. That technology and the internet has provided a platform for the world to access is undeniable but the ways in which the world is now able to access this information (i.e. news blogs, photosharing websites) threatens to revolutionize certain professional systems.

Shirky's chapter is imperative to any discussion of citizen journalism because he differentiates between professionals and non-professionals who perform professional acts such as the blogger who is dedicated to providing the public with accurate newsworthy information but holds no credentials and is not recognized in the journalistic profession. Professionals, in any field, are identified as such not just through the work that they create but through their training, through their peers and through their scarcity. Shirky reframes and takes a step back from the ethical arguments over the responsibilities of citizen journalists to an argument about whether or not they are professionals in the first place and what implications the answer to that question makes. This would seem an insignificant question, but in fact it helps sort through a host of issues. The definition of a professional renders citizen journalists as unprofessional because professionals do not exist in mass, which begs the question of whether or not the citizen journalist can be afforded certain journalistic privileges. 

What's more is that the internet has now given the citizen the ability to determine what is newsworthy, to give face to issues that may have previously been ignored by professionals due to financial or editorial restrictions or bring under-the-radar events or public opinion to the forefront, or rather front page of print.

The purpose of this project is to analyze the recent phenomenon of citizen journalism. The internet has created a new platform for the creation and distribution of information. The layman or amateur is now able to perform professional functions through news websites, blogs, photo sharing sites, etc. Newsworthy material is no longer guarded by a select few people who the general public must depend on to remain informed. With this new power that the layman has yielded comes responsibility though... or does it? Should the layman be held accountable by the same standards as a traditional journalist, if they are in fact performing the same function? Furthermore, is it really possible for an amateur to perform the same function as a professional? This is to say much of what makes a professional is based on the technology they have access to, a journalist is not simply a journalist simply because he writes or even because he has studied journalism but because he is a part of a recognized industry. Other issues surrounding the move of traditional print news sources move to the internet are to be discussed. What threat do citizen journalists pose to traditional papers' websites? Can anyone really compete with the Washington Post or the New York Times? Perhaps most importantly the question of why citizen journalism became so popular will be addressed. I hypothesize that technology has a great deal to do with it. People create blogs and offer their opinion to the digitally connected world simply because they are now able to. High quality camera phones and digital cameras allow us to interact in a way and with an immediacy that was never possible before, so why not indulge. But, beyond egotistical motivations I think cross media market monopolies must be held accountable. The homogenization of news material, amongst other things, has forced the "amateur" to take news gathering into his own hands. With the help of the FCC and deregulation, media conglomerates are now able to own mostly all of the venues of information for entire markets. Television stations, radio stations (i.e. Clear Channel) and newspapers are all owned by the same company in some markets, which begs the question what is being fed to the public? If we depend on these limited resources to inform an ever growing populace, everything from what the local weather will be like to how we will vote for the future of our country, then a lack of diverse opinions threatens democracy. I this very homogenization is part of the reason that the citizen has taken things into his own hands to become an autonomous news source.

Bercovici, Jeff. "'Citizen Journalists' Don't Get a Pass on Ethics." Conde Nast Portfolio June 2008 .

This brief article serves as a introduction to the controversy surrounding citizen journalist Mayhill Fowler. Fowler recently received media attention because of her coverage of Barack Obama; she audio recorded Obama's comment about "bitter" small town voters. Obama was not made aware by Fowler that this recording would be published. Bercovici charges Fowler's recording and publishing of Obama's comment as unethical, hence the title of the article. Bercovici also bring in, very briefly, the opposing commentary, made by NYU Journalism Professor, Jay Rosen; "Fowler didn't have much time to identify herself as a journalist (in the latter instance) and, moreover, because she's not a journalist in that sense that she's only one of very many unpaid contributors to Off The Bus. "I'm not sure we can tell all 1,700 contributors, 'You're all reporters for the Huffington Post... That's not really true.'"

This case highlights, perhaps the largest, controversial issue of blogging. According to Bercovici, Fowler acted unethically by failing to inform Obama that his comment would be recorded and potentially published. but the larger issue being discussed is whether or not news bloggers should and can be held to the same standard as professional/traditional journalists. Had Fowler been a professional journalist, any question of ehtics would have been easily decided - she would be charged with acting unethically but because Fowler does not hold the official title of journalist, can we still hold her to the same professional standards.

Holding citizen journalists to a professional standard implicates more than issues of ethical practice but also issues of content. That is to say, is it fair to expect the highest quality (professional even) news reporting from citizen journlists but not hold them to the same ethical standard that we hold professionals to. Can we consider a citizen journalist a professional in some regards and not in others? I would propose that the answer to this question is no, but that is not to say that Fowler acted unethically. The role of the citizen journalist is very unique to the modern world, with the internet and technological advances, the internet has not only created a new space that must be governed rather precariously but it has also given rise to a new populous of peole who occupy that space. The citizen journlaist is one of the new characters that occupies that space and consequently the guidelines that dictate their roles in this new space are different from those of a traditional journalists. Bercovici's last line, "Being a "citizen journalist" doesn't mean you get to pose as a citizen and then publish as a journalist." effectively rams this controversial point home because the very title "citizen journalist" indicates that one can do exactly that, straddle their citizen and journalist roles but which aspects of each should citizen journalists exercise.