Comments on: ONA: Is ‘citizen journalist’ an appropriate term?

By: Michael Rosenblum

Michael Rosenblum — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:41:14 +0000

We are all journalists, are we not? Is this not the bedrock of the First Amendment. Is this not why the US does not license journalists. Everyone has the right to participate in the great public discourse. The notion of ‘citizen journalist’ invites the notion that there might be other ‘professional’ journalists - a higher category. This is nonsense. We are all in this together, and that is no bad thing.

By: adam

adam — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:56:32 +0000

While the actually term may not be best to describe the phenomenon I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that being a good citizen and a good journalist are contradictory.

If you believe that a journalist should be more like Geraldo than Murrow than Keen might be right. But the standards that mark a good journalist have a lot in common with those that of a good citizen.

Good journalists help empower and make better citizens and vice versa.

I do however agree that a guy who happens to capture a train wreck on his cell phone might not be best termed a “citizen journalist”.

Maybe it’s time to rebrand “Man On The Street”.

By: fleetwood mack

fleetwood mack — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:51:47 +0000

Of course it isn’t.

Are all who post proven to be “citizens” and of what?

And what is a “journalist” other than someone who keeps a journal?

We’ve wrapped this form of self-expression in a populist name so misleading as to make my teeth hurt everytime i hear it or it is used to defend the right to run off at the mouth or keyboard.

How about a Lost Remote contest to come up with a proper name?

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:23:19 +0000

I loathe the term “citizen journalist.”

It’s not as if a painter who only does it for free (or part-time) refers to themselves as a “citizen painter.”