JournalistIC anarchy….

No one is saying that citizen journalism is inherently as reliable as professional reporting. It isn’t. But because (in America, anyway), much of what passes for professional journalism has its own corporate filtering in place–no reporting that upsets the applecart, nothing that might embarrass the owning corporation or the board of directors, etc etc–and all too often driven by powerful political interests to the point that news reports become little more than weapons to turn against your opponents, it is hard to claim that professional journalists are much more reliable.

“Citizen journalists” and pundits have to make their bones just as professional reporters do. I said in the previous conversation that I no longer trust a particular news outlet, but focus more on individual reporters such as Seymour Hersh or Ryan Singel. But now, if I want punditry on subjects that interest me, I visit college professor Juan Cole’s blog to learn about events and issues in the Middle East, or former civil litigator Glenn Greenwald’s blog to read more about civil liberties issues and general political events. (They are both unabashed progressives with a leftward slant. I make no bones about my political persuasions. Righties have their own preferred bloggers and citizen journalists/pundits. Whatever blows your skirt up!)

While citizen journalism must continue to be explored, questioned, and verified–just as professional reporting must be–it only works if it is allowed to be published, and vetted, without such restrictions as you’re suggesting. The filtering must come after publication and not so much before. In this case, the marketplace (of ideas) must be allowed to rule, rather than arbitrary gatekeepers deciding what is and what isn’t legitimate before allowing you and I to see it and make our own decisions. We have to be well-informed, skeptical, and slow to make judgments based on what we read. But don’t take away my right or ability to judge for myself.