So, citizen journalism. It's dangerous stuff.
Well, it is. People are paid to do a job. They are qualified. They study the law, they study their craft and if deemed worthy, they are given a position. Yet, when it comes to journalism, this is being subverted.
Citizen policing is called being a vigilante. It is generally frowned upon, not to mention illegal. You can't just decide that one person needs punishing and another does not. So why can a person be targeted by "guerilla journalists"?
Before I ever get paid work, I will have to get work experience for a few weeks. Then I will have to undergo training. I will be trained to write without bias. I will be trained to understand what I can and can't write about, what will get me into trouble. I will be trained to seek out reliable sources and to verify the factual integrity of anything I try and publish.
Yet, much of the reporting on the events of the past couple of years, particularly those unfolding in journalist-unfriendly parts of the Arab world, has been done by members of the public. Like me. Except, unlike me, they're not me, so I don't trust them at all.
Every time you read some anonymous contribution on the internet, what you are effectively doing is listening to the ramblings of blokes in pubs. Except, because it's online, you can't see the fact that they're having a pint, and that what they've just told you has been directly influenced by that pint. You don't know if they're wearing trousers. You don't know if they've got bits of twig in their hair. What I'm saying is- what makes you trust somebody online when, if they tried talking to you in person, you'd probably jab repeatedly at your personal attack alarm?
I'm not saying that "democratic journalism" doesn't serve a purpose. It is essential, particularly in places where events are unfolding quicker than professional journalists can get to the area. It is also essential to add a splash of colour, a personable note to an otherwise dry news story. However, as in most things, when people contribute their opinions, the opinions are not worth it.
To elucidate this point, I have ventured onto the pages of The Daily Mail Online, which is to the Daily Mail what the Daily Mail is to a quality newspaper. I don't care if I have reduced my chances of employment with that statement- I have a soul.
At the bottom of a perfectly innocuous article regarding a black woman who was not allowed to be adopted by her white foster parents sit the following comments:
"How is this even an article?"
"Social service are a***holes!"
"a lot of social workers are damaged themselves and don't like to see people happy and apart from being dysfunctional they are often thick"
The last one sums it up perfectly. When asked to provide elucidating comments on an article, the gormless masses will leap at the opportunity, for the simple reason that the world owes them something, and that means they can voice their unfounded opinion, and polish said turd until it resembles fact. From my research (actual research) I could find only a handful of insightful snippets, based on real life experiences or statistics.
The rest of it was a vomit-inducing concoction of ignorance and trolling. Trolling ranges from the funny to the downright evil. As Richard Bacon described it, it is "the cowardly new world of internet abuse". Much as I agree with their sentiments, a large proportion of Daily Mail Online commenters read an entire article and, rather than get bored half way and stop reading the website for it's abysmal content and substandard reporting, pretend they are so outraged by the grammatical mistakes and minor spelling errors that they feel the need to post a response. "You should be locked up-preferably with no further access to writing materials" said Jon from Warrington. "awful writing" said Gemma from London.
If you meet either of these people, please kick them in the gonads from me.
If you want to see a troll in action, I would advise Yahoo Answers. This is a simultaneously sickening and addictive service, in that it collects the overall stupidity of the world into easy-to-handle portions.
A cursory glance yielded the question "How can I get lesbians to stop doing number 2 on my lawn? [...] Humane answers only, please." Suggestions included providing a photo for the lesbians to attack instead. Answers can be equally unhelpful, as this website will testify.
I get riled about citizen journalism. I even get riled about the weakness of online compared to print, but if we do insist on never paying for anything, what can we expect? There is one problem, however- I'm one of them.
I'm a blogger. I spout unverified opinions constantly. My information is generally backed up by nothing more than my personal experiences. It hurts me to be on the same level. It doesn't really happen in other professions. Trainee brain surgeons do not start out practising on their friends. They do not have to contend with guerilla brain surgeons making them look bad. Real brain surgeons will not get criticised on the quality of their work by the general public.
For some reason, brain surgery commands an awful lot more respect than journalism. If you walked up to someone and told them your cousin/friend/mentor needed a decompressive craniectomy, and asked them for their help, they'd probably turn you down. However, if you told them you had hours to finish a newspaper and would they write a column, they'd most likely give it a bash. Why? Prehistoric man got the hang of making a hole in the skull long before writing. Yet people think they can do it.
As a result, the quality of journalism has become cheapened. In tandem, the price of newspapers has gone up. We can't keep trying to get our information from the internet. I know I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but... it's all rubbish.
