Washington Post Swings At Citizen Journalism, Fouls Out

With a stomach full of turkey, The Editorialiste returns with a healthy dose of citizen journalism coverage.

In today's Washington Post, staff writer Jose Antonio Vargas reports on his own MSM versus citizen journalist tiff, backed by the words "anyone" and "Orwellian," among other things:

Aboard the crowded D train, rumbling into Brooklyn on the Manhattan Bridge, the inevitable rant explodes. A rant courtesy of Faye Anderson, whom we'll call Ms. CJ, a.k.a. Citizen Journalist. A rant directed at us, Mr. MSM, a.k.a. Mainstream Media, for all our perceived faults.

"It's not you, the journalist, it's the institution," Ms. CJ tells Mr. MSM. "You're not telling the whole story. . . . You've lost your credibility."

We listen, take notes, check if the tape recorder's working. No telling what Anderson might do if she's misquoted.

Phew! And they call citizen journalists the sassy, bile-spewing ones. Despite this retread of a story -- it is basically what this blog was originally founded upon -- it's put within the context of the 2008 election, and reads like a text version of CNN's now-canceled Crossfire. After intense discussion -- yes, still us versus them -- it ends this way:

On the night of the forum, Ms. CJ, sitting in the press room, wrote on her blog, "OK, I'm settled in and looking around. I see a lot of familiar faces from the mainstream media. As they deign to check out bloggers row, they may wonder who lets us in. I guess the debate about whether bloggers are journalists is over."

Says Anderson: "Look, everyone's trying to analyze what citizen journalism is, what its impact will be in this election. We, the citizen journalists, are figuring it out. You mainstream media folks are figuring it out. But whatever it is, there's no going back. We're here. Get used to it."

I don't know about you, but I'm disappointed. Why? Because this story has been published so very many times, and we're not any closer to closure on the issue. Hell, even I wrote this story -- two years ago. Are citizen journalists and big-J journalists ever going to get along?

Can't we just agree that the word journalism isn't exclusive? (But the word professional is.)

This article didn't add anything to advance discussion on this topic, and it sure didn't do anything for the reader. After all, isn't the reader a citizen journalist, then?

Think about this: As a reader of the Washington Post, you are reading that the Washington Post is having a hard time dealing with the fact that you, the reader, can indirectly contribute and shape it's coverage, and then you're being told that they're having a hard time dealing with that fact -- under the premise that it's news you should be reading. And yet, the "citizen journalists" in the article couldn't appear more distant from the reader.

In my book, the whole thing's backwards. Can someone e-mail WaPo and tell them not to write about citizen journalism anymore unless it's in the context of the reader? And while you're at it, tell them that self-coverage (like ProPublica) is irrelevant to non-pressheads?

Someone get Jay Rosen in here, stat.

Columbia J-School Moves Toward New Media, "Tradigital" Journalist

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism isn't exactly thought of as a school on the bleeding edge. After all, with all of its history and close-ties to mainstream media, it's rarely expected to be the preferred choice of the blogger-cum-citizen journalist set, and of all things, it's headed by a guy who has been deemed the "Pope of MSM."

(In full disclosure, that didn't stop me from attending, however.)

But today I sensed a new change at Columbia, months after Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism decided to revamp the entire curriculum. Today, I was told that the "New Media Newsroom" class for "New Media" majors and interested non-majors (such as broadcast, newspaper or magazine) was under the close watch of Dean Nick Lemann -- yes, the aformentioned Pope -- and a series of affiliated committees with interest in the school. It's the "most watched class," apparently, and "Dean Lemann's baby."

Hmm. For a man who penned "Amateur Hour" in The New Yorker, that's an interesting change, no?

This year, for the first time in the school's history, "New Media" majors were brought in two weeks earlier than newspaper and magazine concentrators to learn production techniques for websites, flash, photography, audio recording and video editing. In addition, the school-wide required Reporting and Writing I class now includes a "web-ified" element to it.

Pulitzer Prize administrator Sig Gissler summed up the outlook perfectly with his own coined term: "The tradigital journalist."

Has the "gray lady" of journalism academe finally come around on the topic of a new journalist guard? Or was Lemann too-quickly judged by more technologically savvy critics such as NYU/PressThink's Jay Rosen and CUNY/BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis?

Is Columbia's perception as a slow-moving traditionalist truly accurate?

I don't know, and due to my affiliation, I'm happy to avoid passing judgment. I await reading others' thoughts. But what I can say is that the tide change is readily apparent in the halls, and it's no secret that students from the others sections have expressed demand for new media skills.

Is Lemann backing down his criticism of amateur journalists in the field by teaching his own students the techniques they use to scoop MSM?

Has Citizen Journalism Become Elitist?

I was speaking with a colleague about Jay Rosen's NewAssignment.Net and Assignment Zero yesterday, and it struck me that I haven't yet seen much product from the much-hyped new way of doing journalism. In fact, I don't even know anyone who's involved in the project. And when I took a look at the sites this morning, all I could think about was how the big ship of Rosen's brand of citizen journalism was leaving port, and I wasn't on it.

What's more, I don't think I care, either. But I want to. Where's the disconnect?

Is the "new" citizen journalism really all it's cracked up to be?

It's not that I don't like citizen journalism -- part of this blog is dedicated to covering the phenomenon, and I'm all for it. But there's something limiting about this new form of grassroots participation. Does this new incarnation really have the level of involvement of, say, Wikipedia?

Could Wikipedia have succeded with deadlines and assignments?

Maybe a better idea would just simply be "Pressapedia" -- an ever-updating wiki that's moderated by the editors Rosen's hired. Then it would function solely as its own publication, and always be up to date (after all, no one wants a comment trashing their piece). It would, of course, police itself. (Which makes me wonder -- what if one of Assignment Zero's writers submits falsely reported information? Then what?)

For now, Assignment Zero is due out June 5, and it has struck a deal with Wired.com to run a piece by Jeff Howe. This too, makes me wonder, though I might have missed it when I read the original explanation for the project -- is Assignment Zero functioning as a newswire? A publication? Or just a freelance reporter with hundreds of brains?

Nevertheless, the more I look at the sites, the less "welcome" I feel in contributing to them. Hell, I'm graduating from the same Department of Journalism that Rosen works for -- why haven't I and my fellow classmates been recruited for such an endeavor? With all of these press releases and articles about it by other journalists (how meta), it's starting to feel more like a grassroots media corporation with a good marketing team than a grassroots reporting team.

I'm not trying to pick apart Rosen's new endeavor(s). I think they're a great new way of thinking -- I just don't feel compelled by them. And I like journalism.

How much of a splash could Assignment Zero have if it takes this long to put out a single story? In the world of round-the-clock news, could a slow turnover rate be the Achilles Heel of citizen journalism?

As my colleague said, it might work in theory -- but not in practice. We'll have to see in the coming months.

The New York Times Should Pick a Young Dark Horse for Public Editor

Slate's Jack Shafer wants the New York Times' new public editor to be under 40. And I think he's right.

Jack says it's because his or her "worldview hasn't been Lasiked blind by decades inside a newspaper newsroom, and who writes the way fire ants bite."

And I say he's on the money (AJR's Carl Sessions Stepp thinks so too). But I think his list of suggestions goes a little too extreme, reflecting a desire to steer toward the Web without concern for actual editing psychology.

(As a side note, I don't always agree with Shafer, but I do read his columns often, and I'm always impressed with his handle of history and ability to shape an argument. I think he's one of the finest writers out there.)

Though Shafer's list mentions some qualified journalists in magazines and newspapers (Joshua Green, Larissa MacFarquhar, Michele Cottle), it also emphasizes the first honorary blog class of media: Elizabeth Spiers of Gawker/Dealbreaker fame and Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo.

And you know what? Those are some stellar big names in the industry. But as an ombudsman? A public editor? I don't know. Just because you write opinion all the time and got famous for it doesn't mean you're qualified to do it and do it well.

Let's take Spiers as an example. When I met her, she seemed far less concerned with editorial pursuits than with business models, and she mentioned that business was her groove and not gossip. Spiers will make a fine publisher - hell, she already is on that track with Dead Horse Media - who is savvy to editorial feel. But as a public editor? Spiers made her name spitting bile for Gawker, but I don't know if she's really cares to critique the many aspects of The Times for the benefit of The Times. For her, the question isn't whether The Times can afford her, the questions are whether she'd really care to backtrack to old habits and whether the Times is getting the best bang for its buck. She won't be afraid to step on toes or cut them off entirely- but will she be right?

And that's just one of Shafer's examples. I think Shafer's sentiment behind the suggestions is great - look to the web, look away from the old guard - but I must caution that we needn't swing all the way over so quickly. It's as if Lockhart Steele hired Howard Kurtz to be Gawker's public editor. How would Alex Balk feel then?

In my opinion, I think the Times should hire an unknown; a dark horse. I don't think you're going to find a solid opinion in someone's clips - I think it will have to emerge from a lengthy conversation about the paper. After all, why would a great reporter translate into a great ombudsman? Wouldn't a good editor be better?

And how do bloggers fit into the mix? I certainly don't think calling out Anna Wintour through a gossip blog necessarily qualifies someone to critique coverage on the war in Iraq. So really, you need to find someone who cares passionately about journalism, without getting caught up in the mundane or the profane.

Let's go a step further: How should a journalism degree fit into this? Should we move to elect people who have had guaranteed exposure from an Ivory Tower? Should The Times just hire Jay Rosen and be done with it?

It's not an easy decision no matter what. So frankly, I think The Times should have a big write-off: open the field to all comers, make them all write on a specific issue, and see how they do. Then pick your editor.

A public editor needn't have star power - just a critical eye and a fluid pen.

EDIT: Gawker, of course, came up with their own list in response to Shafer's column - not surprisingly with their own staffers and favorite punching bags.