Let's regulate "Citizen Journalism" (and other absurdities)

An Associate Professor at the University of Georgia's Journalism School,David Hazinski, yabbers in a recent column that we should "regulate citizen journalists." He writes " CNN's last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee. False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors. There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com." What horrors!!!!! Had the professor bothered to take that list of indiscretions and match them against the failings of the "professional community" he would have an imbalanced list.

Hazinski makes three suggestions. "• Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity. (Perhaps as a novel suggestion journalism schools should also think about asking their students to work on accuracy and authenticity for their actual students). • They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning. (Yeah, right - that one would require the "professionals" to have some standards.) • Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified. (Most of that training takes place outside of the university, for some obvious reasons.)

What particularly caught my attention about this article was not the absurd suggestions but more the notion that "professional" journalists live up to a consistent standard. The range of outrages that we have lived with for fabricated stories and false reporting from the professionals seems to be ignored. Hazinski's notion that if we just professionalize something it will meet standards cannot be demonstrated in his profession. But second, his suggestions ignore the very real impact of the ubiquity of information. At one point there was a "paper of record" in the US. At one point there were only three television networks and they established a somewhat common standard of information. But those days are gone and will not return. No yammering about establishing professional standards will bring them back - licensure is not the answer. Reminding information consumers that caveat emptor is a good caution for any source be it professional or citizen is a much better standard. We get the benefit of citizen journalists of all types but with that benefit there is also a cost. It is too bad that professor Hazinski does not understand that.