David Carr's recent New York Times
article addressed his journey tracing back to the source of a famous photograph posted anonymously online. The photograph, which went viral on websites like Reddit and Gawker, depicted exploding manhole covers in Omaha, Nebraska. Carr's article draws attention to the amazing things that are going on all around the world that are being captured by regular people. These regular people, however, become citizen journalists just by snapping photographs with their cell phones and posting them to sites like Twitter or Instagram. The great irony left from Carr's story is that he was forced to
log off the web and enter into the real world in order to track down the photographer who captured the image that shocked the public online.
 |
| The photograph that David Carr tracked down, taken from an Omaha apartment building. |
It was especially interesting to hear David Carr, who has become somewhat of an embodiment of mobile media through his constantly-updated Twitter feed and success in embracing the future of news, discuss the importance of breaking away from the Internet in life. As Carr writes, "Shoe leather never looked or smelled so good." Carr appreciates the importance of returning to "real" reporting that used to make up the industry of journalism.
Through his description of the trail he followed to track down the famous photograph, Carr establishes the point that much of the journalism and photography online today is unattributed or unclaimed by an author. The danger in this seems very apparent: people can post just about anything, real or fake, and pass it off to be believed by the masses. It is almost impossible to establish the legitimacy of something when we have no idea where it comes from. Carr seems to agree. He wrote, "But at a time when almost everyone is beyond caring what is real or fake onscreen, knowing that, in this case, someone who is paid to get to the bottom of things did just that is somewhat comforting."
 |
| -David Carr |
While our class has spent a lot of time reading about and discussing the benefits of citizen journalism, we have spent much less time focusing on the dangers of individuals participating in creating news when they have absolutely no credibility, background, authority, or reason to tell the truth. Here I am again reverting back to the idea of earning your voice a la Kathleen Parker, but I believe that this is one of the cornerstones that must be defined in the changing industry of journalism. The fact that everybody has the
accessibility to create news does not mean that everybody has the
license to do so. I understand the effectiveness of citizen journalism in that it allows reporters to have eyes and ears in places where they are unable to personally report on a scene or event. However, in the end I agree with Carr that there is an irreplaceable importance that "real"reporting brings to America. Being able to trust the people who provide our news is a key factor in maintaining effective journalism in America. We must call for journalists to be held accountable for their words, and we can do so through establishing a criteria to define journalists as a specific group, not the entire public.
One little thing... Carr wasn't the one who tracked down the photo, Matthew Hansen of the Omaha World-News did. Carr just lauded him.
ReplyDeleteI like how you juxtapose Carr's analysis of Hansen's reporting - that journalists need to leave the cubicle - with your wish to distinguish citizen journalists from bona fide journalists. Do you think the definition should be those behind a desk vs. those who go into the community? Would love to see you expand those thoughts.
Whoops, even I made a mistake. It's Matthew Hansen of the World-Herald. Got the paper wrong.
ReplyDeleteHow would you define a professional journalist? Do you think there is any room for the citizen journalist in the world of journalism? Could this ever be a positive and helpful thing?
ReplyDeleteAlso, when you said, "The danger in this seems very apparent: people can post just about anything, real or fake, and pass it off to be believed by the masses" it made me think of all the photos posted online during Hurricane Sandy that went viral.
Interesting post!
Thanks for the correction, Clara! I think the distinction that needs to be made should focus on grouping people who have received actual training in journalism vs. those who have not. I think a very important part of a journalists job can be going out into the community to explore and report. Staying behind your desk will limit a journalist's world view and, therefore, their ability to do their job. However, I think it's important to consider a writers past training/schooling/experience in journalism in order to legitimize their work and call them a bona fide journalist.
DeleteThis was a big issue during Hurricane Sandy too. Many of the photographs going around the web were doctored, from different storms, or in some cases from the film Day After Tomorrow. I think even when the photographer makes an effort to be forthcoming about the photograph, other people who see the picture don't always read before reposting.
ReplyDeleteMeg, and everyone else, did you see this blog post: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/337753.php The guy rips Carr and journalism in general for congratulating themselves for basically doing their job. I thought it was pretty dumb and got in a very brief Twitter spat w/the guy. But it's an interesting read nonetheless.
ReplyDelete