Can Twitter Make You Into a Journalist?
Jul 14th, 2009 by msdanielle
After attending the Social Media Club Los Angeles (SMCLA) panel discussion on “citizen journalism,” I have a lot of unanswered questions and thoughts about what journalism is, and where it’s heading. My uncle was a journalist and worked for years at CBS when I was a child, then hosted his own show on CNN, and finally ended his network career at MSNBC before taking on assignments for NPR. Do I consider him a journalist? Without a doubt. Would I consider someone who’s a really avid Twitter user a journalist? Well, that’s a little more difficult to call.
Panelists at last night’s SMCLA meeting defined their ideas of citizen journalism. And without quoting them (since I don’t have an audio transcript), a couple summed it up as “anybody journalism.” Anyone who has a means of press distribution can be considered a citizen journalist. In fact, it’s our right as a free society to a free press. That is, should one have the means of distribution.
While there is definite speculation as to whether or not the nomenclature is correct, that’s open for much further delving. I think a more accurate term is “democratized news,” a phrase that popped into my head after hearing their various definitions. David Sarno noted that journalism refers to reporting that has gone through fact-checking and source verification. I agree. Christina Gagnier used quotational gestures when saying the phrase out loud. There was obvious questionability to the term “citizen journalist” being valid.
But regardless of what you call it, Twitter is putting news reporting in the hands of regular people. In places like Iran where Western journalists are highly restricted, and individuals use whatever means they have to get the information out, they’re the best chance the world has to gain any insight on what’s happening on the inside. But whose voice do you trust?
That’s where traditional journalism breaks away from social media reporting. With thousands of people tweeting snippets of information, it can be hard to know who is reporting what’s really going on, and who’s spinning it the way they see it. The whole topic makes me wonder to what extent Twitter users are holding themselves to any journalistic rules or ethics. The panel addressed the question, “Should there be rules to citizen journalism?” That’s a whole other topic that I’ve tried tackling in the world of blogging – the existence of ethical standards. However, who would regulate these rules, and what would motivate someone who’s already voicing their opinion to start following them now?
What I want to know is, How can democratized news help the existing media outlets be accountable for what they’re reporting? Just because someone sits behind the desk on FOX news channel, doesn’t make them a journalist in my opinion – even if they went to school for it. Bias will seep out into the media regardless of whether or not someone has a degree saying they’re a journalist. And FOX isn’t the only severely biased news organization. In either case, many people on TV are out to get ratings, just like how many Twitter users are out to get followers. Bias can create a tight loyalty, a dangerous lure that journalists should proactively avoid.
I think democratized news is the cure for the disease known as sensationalist media. Not all network reporting is bad, but much of it is very biased and much of it that I’ve seen is little more than car chases and murders. Plus TV news is highly controlled by a small group of people.
And not all democratized news is journalism.
What democratized news can do is help keep other reporters honest, because everyone now has a voice, right or wrong. If you’re a journalist and you know someone else’s reporting is inaccurate or untruthful, then prove it. If you want to show the world that your degree means you have a “higher” ethical standard than someone who doesn’t, then prove it. If you want to show FOX news is full of crap, prove it. But make sure you’re right, and you’ve done your homework.
Ultimately, reporting should be factual, either way, so that the recipients of the information can digest it as-is and form their own perceptions of events as they happen. What’s great about this day and age is that any person can publish news from the palm of their hands.
So, can Twitter make you a journalist if you really really use it a lot? Not in my opinion. It’s just one element to the equation, and becoming an important media vehicle. But it can help you become one damn popular reporter, and help get your message out to the masses.
Resources:
[If you enjoy reading MsDanielle.com, please feel free to subscribe via RSS or get free email updates.]
Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe via email:
I agree with you- Twitter won’t make you a journalist, but the traditional definition of the term that applied years ago is no longer as relevant today. There are emerging forms of journalism that are rising in popularity that may or may not be less credible, but certainly spread like wild fire!
oh yeaaaaahhhhh…didn’t you graduate with communications/journalism?
would like to have a discussion with you on that
Advertising/PR and Film, but close enough (kinda, sorta). Are you coming to NY for Affiliate Summit?
IMO, this convo is only coming up because traditional media, esp newspapers are losing touch with their potential readers and twitter happens to be the latest bogeyman (after blogs) to take the rap.
-
The problem is that since the advent of “traditional” print publishing being monetized by print ads, there hasn’t been a viable alternative to monetizing it effectively.
Effectively papers are locked into a CPM monetization model and haven’t been able to make the transition into a CPA/PPS/revshare type of arrangement.
-
I dont think the whole convo abt social media, twitter, etc, needs to be elevated to the form of citizen’s journalism, freedom of speech, etc.
As long as kids have been able to draw a comic with crayons and sell it for a nickel or a dime, they’ve been competition to traditional media.
-
It’s only when traditional media is lying bleeding on the ground with its lifeblood spewing from it’s jugular (arising from its own inadequacies) that we’re having these circular convos, which won’t really achieve much beyond philosophical navel gazing….
-
any reporting is welcome as long as it’s current, accurate and relevant
-
back to traffic and monay!…
i agree traditional media is crying “other” but at the same time these participants are also referring to this form of media as the same. so it seems there’s a consensus on the methodology being separate. i don’t think the issue is revolving around freedom of speech so much as, who do we trust? traditional media who has money and reach, or social media reporters who don’t have the money but have the technology. it comes down to credibility. i’m not sure we should instinctively trust anyone who puts something out via Twitter, just as much as we should be wary of what we consume from TV. (david sarno talked about Twitter’s significance in providing trend data, not so much ONE reputable person that he trusts.) both forms of media should inspire discussions, and both should also be scrutinized.
What an awesome post! The traditional journalist, along with their traditional means of delivering the news to us, is a creature hovering on the brink of extinction. The advent of the internet has proven to be a great leveller in terms of access to uncensored information, and the truth is what sets us free…..