He was a young, new graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. Post-graduation, the mid-20’s urban professional became the hip, up-and-coming, hot shot reporter of The New Republic...Anything of this sound familiar, yet?
As journalism students, -- well, as students in general -- most of us have been indoctrinated to never plagiarize, never copy and paste someone else’s work and claim it as your own. Well, along with these lessons came the story of Stephen Glass. Stephen Glass has now become synonymous with literary distortion.
I’m sure most people have some knowledge of the film “Broken Glass” depicting the lengths Glass underwent to cover up the concocted sources and claims in his false stories and the downfall of his promising career. Most notable of his fraudulent stories, which most of us journalism students have read, is “Hack Heaven.” The story details the sophomoric, yet genius, escapades of teenaged software hacker Ian Restil, who penetrated the security system of a company called Jukt Micronics.
But, as we all know, this story proved to have been completely fabricated when sources were checked and when Jukt Micronics was googled. The “big-time software firm” did not appear on major search engines, further verifying Glass’ plagiarism.
And, this wasn’t even the only story he invented and contrived.
OK, so I know most of you are probably wondering how this relates to “We the Media.” The main question I had, and still have, while reading this book was/is, if professional journalists with experience employed with reputable publications can fabricate stories, sources and events, then can we really trust citizen journalists?
Dan Gillmor discusses topics and a theme that seem somewhat obvious to us: the Internet changes the relationship between the media and consumers. Now there has been a transfer of power from the big news corporations to the regular, everyday reader, changing the way news is handled. Technology and the Internet have provided the means for anyone to become a journalist efficiently and economically, transforming the role of journalism as more grassroots and democratic.
Cell phones equipped with cameras and smart-phone technology -- that allows you to upload videos anywhere instantly -- buffers the lines between professional and novice journalists. While there are pros to this concept, I still doubt the authenticity or credibility of amateurs. Not only are they unfamiliar with AP style, but they are also untrained in the SPJ code of ethics and lack a basic background in journalism. If we cannot trust professionals to do their jobs scrupulously, then can we really have faith in others?
I do appreciate the idea of people expressing their opinions openly and freely and serving as a check on monopolized big corporations controlling news content. But, what will happen to journalists? I’m already fearful of the job market that’s going to welcome -- or reject -- us. And now that just anyone, any age, in any country can be a journalist, what will happen to my role in the field of journalism? But, more importantly, what happens to people and humanity?
In a world where we’re already jaded and unwilling to reach out to others, I almost feel that people will become even more cynical and skeptical of each other, especially when they don’t know who is reporting the news and when that news could be false or a hoax. We don’t know who these people are, where they are getting their information from or how they obtained it. If we cannot even trust the information disseminated by The New Republic (Stephen Glass) or The New York Times (Jayson Blair), then who can we really trust?
Is the Internet just a reflection of our uneasy world? What are the long-term effects of citizen journalism for the world? For the optimist, it can unite us and make us open and trusting of our communities. Citizen journalism can bring people together when we need encouragement and support. When there is an injustice afflicting people, they can voice their opinions, facts and arguments on the Internet, garnering support from fellow activists and proponents of their plight. In some respects, I admire bloggers and ordinary citizens who are fighting for their rights and causes. And I applaud the Internet’s role in bulldozing the big corporations that dominated news-gathering. I don’t doubt the Internet’s effect on making the news more accessible and democratic; I just hope it doesn’t spiral out of control, allowing anyone to report on the news.
How many times have we heard about Elvis’ resurrection from the grave or women bearing alien babies? Yes, those are very extreme cases, and I know we’re not psychotically gullible to believe this absurdity, but these people exist, and the Internet is facilitating and opening more channels for these unstable people to get their deranged messages across.
Gillmor touches on this and questions the accuracy and credibility of citizen journalists, suggesting that skilled and experienced editors will be in high demand to monitor and police online news and information. However, he is still more optimistic than I am. Gillmor believes that the more people accessing and surveying the web, the more supervision there will be over what is dispersed. He also recommends that we teach and indoctrinate these beginner journalists with the ethics and skills involved in being a professional because, he says, their participation in online journalism it’s inevitable anyway. So, we might as well furnish them with the knowledge and tools. But, no matter how many people we teach or instruct, I will still be guarded and suspicious about this effect on the future of journalism and humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment