Essay assignment

University of Hertfordshire – Assignment Edwin Lai Essay Question: “Who is a journalist? When the public becomes journalists, does journalism need ‘certification’, like lawyers and medical doctors? How do we know who to trust? Identify who is a journalist and discuss the pros and cons of regulating journalism.

When the First Amendment was adopted into the US Constitution back in 1791, the Founding Fathers knew how vital an institution a free press would be for democracy and in foresight, sought to protect the rights of the press, expressively forbidding the creation of any law by Congress that might restrict the role of the fourth estate. Yet today, they could not have foreseen that challenges to the First Amendment would come not from legislation or corporate influences as previously thought of but from the very same audience the free press would serve – the public. And with the rise of citizen journalism, the lines defining ‘who is a journalist’ start to fade as bloggers and citizen reporters start to question their rights to the First Amendment thus forcing traditional mainstream media to sit back and reexamine their role as the fourth estate of power. When citizens take on the role of the media and become journalists themselves, who then is a journalist? Do journalists require certification? To whom do we place our trust in and will the enactment of regulation over citizen-produced journalism result as a constitution challenge? Here I will present my arguments with good reason that with the advent of new media, we stand on the precipice of a greater citizenry involvement in the democratic process. I will start of by stating why journalists are no longer defined by profession or affiliation with a particular news organisation but in what they practice and then move on to explain why the citizen journalist through the use of the Internet, can be considered as practicing a form of pseudo-journalism since they have the equivalent access to information once only obtainable by mainstream journalists. Then I explore on the pros and cons of regulating journalism and the issue of certification. To insist citizen journalists to be regulated is to expect the same of traditional mainstream journalists and to redefine journalism as a profession instead of defining it as the work performed. I will also present my arguments that beyond the apparent violation of

the First Amendment (or any other law that prohibits the reining in of the media), to demarcate excessively the legal boundaries of where traditional mainstream journalism stops and citizen journalism begins is to say this new social phenomenon of blogging is the illegitimate product of an incestuous love-hate relationship between disgruntled media consumers and providers of mainstream journalism. New media inventions in whatever form they come in (such as RSS feeds though here we will examine predominantly only blogs) are here to stay and does not seek to usurp the information gate-keeping-watchdog functions of the fourth estate. Instead citizen journalism purpose is not to supplant the position of traditional mainstream journalism but to supplement it, as did the invention of television over radio. The fourth estate still remains a crucial institution of any nation or democracy and to dissect the two apart and say they are mutually exclusive of each other. To remove blogging apart from mainstream journalism is to abolish the radio and keep the television; a preposterous notion, whichever provider you choose to consume your media diet from.

The fundamental question of ‘Who is a journalist?’ could perhaps be answered very simply at the turn of the century or during the rampant dissemination of tabloids of yellow journalism in the early 1900s or after World War 2. Whoever owned a printing press or had in possession a broadcast licence or operated a media business, it quantifies you as a media producer and the staff of writers, journalists and editors you employ were members of the media. Today, such a shoddy definition of who is a journalist would no longer suffice. Perhaps the most authoritative figures on questions about democracy and the media, authors Kovach & Rosenstiel (2001) defines the central question distinctly by saying in the midst of new media, a journalist is no longer a mere recorder of facts, a gate keeper of information or one who takes on the role of a watchdog against government or corporate malfeasance. He is a mediator or ‘forum leader’ and his first task is to verify the reliability of information in an ocean of information, then order it so the public can understand the information in the most efficient way resulting in the rigid structure of the Inverted Pyramid style of news writing (24). Kovach & Rosenstiel (2001) further quote a comment from John Seeley Brown, former director of Xerox PARC, a think tank based in Silicon Valley, the journalist moves into a ‘two-way journalism’ mode to prod the audience to taking the role of both consumer and producer (24). Kovach & Rosenstiel (2001) also assert that in a world where anyone from the public can take on the mantle of journalism (will be explored later on), as a verifier of information, journalists ought to concentrate on information synthesis, applying objectivity through less opinionated interpretation of their own, remove the rumours, spin and insignificance and concentrate on what is important in a story (47-48). But the clearest example and corroborating on Kovach and Rosenstiel’s definition is the California Supreme Court’s ruling on defining the identity of a journalist. Grant (2007) gave the example of how Apple Computer decided on December 2004 that it had to take legal action against ‘unknown’ perpetrators who were leaking classified information to websites on its products in development. The company argued in one of its defence, on the definition of a journalist and journalistic work, that under the constitution, it had the right to seek information on the identity of the perpetrators. However, the websites that

hosted the information, AppleInsider and PowerPage argued that as ‘journalists’, they are entitled to protect their sources’ identities, claims Apple disputed. In a landmark ruling, the California Court of Appeals rejected Apple’s argument that the websites did not constitute as ‘real journalists’. Instead it issued a statement stating “The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners [referring to the websites] did here” (41). Journalism should be seen as more than a profession rather, under the First Amendment, as a right that belongs to every individual. Kline & Burstein (2005) puts it across plainly by quoting media critic Christopher Lasch who says what democracy truly desires is not mere presentation of facts but sustained public debate (11). This is similar to a view held by Rosen (1999) who asks if being detached from the news is what journalists should be doing (171). And sustained public debate, the raw and unfiltered kind is widely present in blogs is what the public demands, as Kline & Burstein (2005) has noted (10). And solely judging from the work that mainstream journalists perform, it is in no way dissimilar to the ones performed by citizen journalists. If the role of the media is to provide a platform where information can flow freely, then one who engages in the flow of information can be considered as journalists, regardless of corporate affiliations.

But what of the public’s ability in taking on the mantle of a journalist? The overwhelming indication that the public can be considered as journalists proves this notion through the advent of the Internet. Grant (2007) asserts the public need not be a professional journalist so as to be looked upon as one who practices journalism (201). Grant (2007) quotes in a 2005 survey by America Online (AOL), survey results show 16 percent of respondents saying they blog because of an interest in journalism. And in a 2006 Pew Internet & American Life Project, figures also corroborate by showing 34 percent of respondents saying they view blogging as a form of journalism (26). But individual acknowledgement is far from recognising citizen journalism as a legitimate form of journalism. What about access to information and resources?

Again, this is where citizen journalists breach the great divide of access to fertile grasslands of information; the kind mainstream journalists generally thought they have had exclusive access

to. Through the availability of technology and ease of access to the Internet, Kline & Burstein (2005) noted it has helped citizen journalists to obtain polling data, fun-raising data etc. the sort of information previously reserved for political consultants (15). Echoing the results is Grant (2007) who notes that the Internet is an inexpensive tool and one that is easy to use therefore resulting in increased user access (24).

The media has traditionally resisted any and all forms of regulation and or certification with the same being said of new media. By having certification or regulation, a more defined role of the new media will be visible says Grant (2007) and, will exacerbate the already bleak financial troubles of mainstream news organizations (182). This provides citizen journalism with a sense of recognition and as advertisers are only drawn to the size of audience accessing the individual’s blog, they might be more inclined to award their next advertising budget to bloggers. According to a Pew Research Center study, as of November 2004, there were over 33 million people accessing blogs. Secondly, increased regulation in the form of a federal shield law—a shield law is a law that exempts those identified as journalists from disclosing the identity of their sources—can result in severe consequences. Grant (2007) notes the Bush administration objected to the conception of a ‘journalist’ in the 2006 senate bill as they argued it might over-include media outlets of terrorist organisations while under-including might discriminate against those who practise journalism on an ‘uncompensated or unaffiliated basis’ (157). Yet, without regulation of new media as Kline & Burstein (2005) best puts it, would be akin to radio talk shows without restrain by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and opinion columns without editors (22). Sanford (1999) further highlights the danger if there is utter deregulation on both mainstream and citizen journalism. This can already be seen in frivolous suits deceivingly brought under the banner of the First Amendment that have no relation whatsoever with democratic aspirations or the free media (183).

Similar in line with the question on regulation lies the ethical question on the issue of trust – who do we trust? The public seems to give a unanimous vote, as noted by Sanford

(1999) when 25 percent say ‘The news media [mainstream media] helps society to solve its problems’ and 71 percent say ‘The news media gets in the way of society solving its problems’ (20). New media is also not spared the same mistrust from the public as Grant (2007) concludes that much of new media is junk (200). This is a similar sentiment uttered by Kline & Burstein (2005) who note that blogs have issues of credibility and is not without faults (12).

Both mainstream media and new media have much to learn from each other.

To conclude, as my argument has stated, the work of journalism and the question arising of ‘who is a journalist’ should not be defined by professional or organisational affiliations but rather by the category of work done. If political blogs go about the business of information gathering, they ought to be recognised as a legitimate form of journalism. This is best represented by the California Supreme Court’s ruling on refusing to define the identity of a journalist. And through the availability of technology and the Internet, I have also argued that citizen journalists are also capable of performing the same tasks as mainstream journalists, even having the same access to resources. On the issue of regulation, although having it can result in more financial repercussions for mainstream media, it is in my opinion that we cannot do without regulation and certification as more harm can be expected if there is complete deregulation on both forms of media. On the point of trust, it is already lacking in both mainstream media and new media. It is in my opinion to get around the issue of trust is for mainstream journalism and new media not to be seen as mutually exclusive from each other since both can complement each other’s flaws. And should new media like blogs err on the side of credibility, the negative reaction and outcry can be overwhelming due to the unfiltered nature of blogs and the fact that raw emotions are being channelled through blogs. As Sanford (1999) best sums up their relationship, citizen journalism or new media is not about replacing mainstream media but firstly, it helps to enhance the public scrutiny role of the press by encouraging more people to promote accountability (186). Secondly, citizen journalism helps to expand the information-gathering role of the press, thus urging mainstream journalists to get

their facts right least they be taken to task by their readers (197). The new media and mainstream media depend on each other in areas of identity, roles and trust.

References*: Grant, Scott E. 2007. We’re All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Kline, David, and Dan Burstein. 2005. blog! How the newest media evolution is changing politics, business, and culture. New York: Squibnocket Partners LLC. Kovach, Biill, and Tom Rosenstiel. 2001. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Rosen, Jay. 1999. What Are Journalists For?. New York: Yale University Press.

Sanford, Bruce W. 1999. Don’t Shoot the Messenger: How our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

* Style references: University of Chicago (2003). The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.