Hypercrit - Latest Comments

Re: City of Bozeman asks for online passwords for job applicant background checks

Philip — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:12:16 -0000

I'm actually kind of dumbstruck by the city's policy. Why couldn't they simply require you to add them as a friend, and then look at your profile the same way that everyone else sees it?

Re: Facebook as a harbinger of the closed-Web apocalypse

Nikki — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:40:35 -0000

“A generation of Web users who only play in the walled communities will forget what it’s like to be in the open Web, where they can experiment with new technologies, explore the limits of what the technologies can do and create new products and new ways to make themselves and other rich.”

Totally. About a year ago I had a myspace account and I got rid of it after I realized it was stifling my ability to write anything of substance and the formatting looked so juvenile. Yuck. I was also blind to any new technology other than the “blog” publishing offered on that site. Confession: I do use Blogger now (which is essentially the same thing) because I’m lazy and like the convenience. However, it still allows me some technological creativity …whatever helps me sleep at night . . . right? Ha!

“Now the open web. . . where people host their own … That is where innovation will come from, . . . ”

Indeed . . . you rock on with your bad blog hosting self!!

Peace,
Nik

Re: Design doldrums

Ryan — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:40:57 -0000

So are you still revising the look?

Re: Some winding thoughts about states rights and Montana House Resolution 3

becker — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:26:46 -0000

Thanks for commenting, and thanks for using a pseudonym. That makes your comment all the more credible.

You have no faith in the government, and I'm not sure why. Your words say to me that you think "the government" is some vast conspiracy, a group of peons who do whatever their bosses say. It's also clear that you believe their bosses mean some harm to the states.

I'm not going to try to change your opinion here. You're entitled to it. I think you're wrong on a lot of levels -- and that you're just as biased as you claim me to be.

You say that "the best choice is to pass legislation NOW to safeguard your state from future abuses by the Feds." The point of my post is that House Resolution 3 contained no action whatsoever. It was a reaffirmation of states rights designed to get the under-educated members of Montana society riled up about combating Washington.

Let me say it again. HR-3 was impotent. All it could have done was raise hackles and sound and fury. It would not have done anything to safeguard Montana whatsoever.

Re: Some winding thoughts about states rights and Montana House Resolution 3

Me. — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:56:04 -0000

I see no comments yet, so I must conclude that no one reads your posts...and this is a good thing. Who the hell wants to read your biased propaganda anyway?

"People who believe that have no faith in our military, our law enforcement and our elected representatives."

Uhhhh yeah...exactly! With the exception of maybe the military. However, the military takes an oath to follow the orders of the CIC, so exactly how much faith can we put in them if they're just an extention of the current corrupt administration?

And you ask why not fight this stuff in court? Uhhh maybe because the courts justices are currently being chosen based on politics, race, and gender, and not on qualifications for interpreting the Constitution. So the best choice is to pass legislation NOW to safeguard your state from future abuses by the Feds. DUH...it's not rocket science here. It just takes a little critical thinking, not opinion-based thinking. (Oh, and a little bit of knowledge of current events would help).

Srsly...you should probably stop sipping that Kool-aid dude.

Re: Chance for YouTube fame decreases the more videos you post

becker — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:32:31 -0000

Thanks for the comment, but I didn't write the article. I just posted a link to it.

That said, I don't agree that YouTube is acting like a drug dealer. YouTube wants page views so it can sell ad impressions. It cannot predict which videos will be hits, so I have the feeling they spotlight videos based on the views those videos are already getting -- how much "buzz" they have. Maybe a lot of those spotlights go to relatively new users; I don't know. I do know that if you\'re joining an online community for the first time, it feels nice to be recognized early on and makes it more likely you'll continue to use that network.

As for the content of the videos you describe, pranking and what not, I don't know. A lot of YouTube content is questionable, but I think you're taking an overly negative view of the kinds of videos that get posted and the addictive power that attention holds over site users.

Re: Chance for YouTube fame decreases the more videos you post

Earthlyman — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:15:01 -0000

Thank you for a great look at "the attention economy." I found your paper because I started wondering what happens to the "post attention" YouTubers (ala Chris Rocker, like the stereotypical childhood celeb, doomed to a life of drugs and desperate attempts for validation?)

In reading your paper, it seems you are assuming YouTube is an unbiased platform. I suspect YouTube, in an effort to encourage newbies, promotes their first videos. As with any good drug dealer "the first one is free," and soon enough the onetime newbie is hooked and back for more. Desperately craving the attention, he eagerly sells his soul, pranking family and friends, in the hopes of getting another “hit.”

Re: Choose wisely

becker — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:35:39 -0000

It's such a damnably hard choice to make. Everybody in the world seems to be using Disqus these days, but, then again, IntenseDebate now allows for plugins which will only extend its functionality in the future. Argh! The choices![polldaddy 1456050 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1456050/ polldaddy]

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

superjaberwocky — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:38:22 -0000

I'm a firm believer than not all reporters are journalists, and not all journalists are reporters. Reporters are those people you're talking about who merely retype facts -- "report" them, duh -- without needing or seeking to analyze. Journalist, in my view, are the ones who use their experience to analyze the importance of some story and relay that importance to the reader. Sometimes, that comes across like bias or opinion; sometimes it just comes across as brilliance.

But both reporters and journalists are part of the larger picture of "journalism." So good reporting is good journalism. Good analysis is good journalism. And so on.

Now, Twitter on March 5 was definitely a stream of "reporting," and perhaps I've been a bit lazy in referring to it as "journalism" here. What I'm primarily concerned about -- though not as concerned right now as I was on the day I wrote the above post -- is what effect such immediate reporting has on journalism. Was it good "journalism"?

Maybe. But the definition of good journalism is changing every day, especially since so many in the news industry are struggling to come up with a better way -- or at least a profitable way.

In an age when most journalism is moving toward being online in some form or another, an age in which "link journalism" exists and thrives (and is awesome in its own way), perhaps some of the pleading for Diggs and constant linking to oneself is going to be the way of journalism's future. I don't know yet. I don't think anyone does.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

superjaberwocky — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:29:48 -0000

I felt much the same way about sending out the information. It became almost compulsive after a while. I'm glad it's all over for that reason -- and others.

Re: You aren’t as unique as you think you are

superjaberwocky — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:35:55 -0000

I should note, the title of the post comes from a line in Yelvington's post.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

superjaberwocky — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:55:28 -0000

Yes, I am inferring meaning from the overall tone I read into your post. That's why I used the word "connotation" in talking about those ideas.

I won't be able to make it to the meeting Wednesday. Baby and family take precedence in the evenings. Perhaps another time.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

Tranq Jones — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:57:36 -0000

I posted your comment the moment you sent it... you filed it however under the previous day's post.

Again though... you're implying that I'm saying "mainstream media accounts we see every day are filtered and edited in sinister ways." I never used the word sinister... i merely said they're filtered and edited--as opposed to the power of things streaming live. You're making a point how professional journalists are more apt to get it right, yet you're making inferences using words I didn't put in print. That's the very point I'm making.

Is my opinion airtight? Of course not. And I generally learn more when I'm wrong then when I'm right. But I do think there is a lot here to debate, with no clear cut answers. So I welcome the dialogue and exploration. And yes, I am highly optimistic and a huge proponent of social media... though with 20+ years of working at most of the major networks, I wouldn't exactly call my optimism 'ignorant.'

I plan on attending the tweet up Wednesday... you can meet me there, or anytime really. I would love to discuss this real time.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

superjaberwocky — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:15:15 -0000

I'll begin defensively and then grow up a bit: Thanks for calling my opinion a "narrow skew." It also seems odd that you're also referring in this comment to a comment I wrote on your blog that you have not opted to publish (as of this writing, 10 p.m. Saturday).

And don't confuse matters, Tranq. I don't write on this blog as a journalist. I write on this blog as a media critic talking about journalism. Don't be surprised then when I get critical. If I had any questions of you that needed answering, I would have contacted you. But this is a blog not a newspaper. I don't have to cover all sides of the story; and besides, you can provide your running comments here without me lifting a keyboard or telephone.

Okay, now for the rationality.

My links, which you point out in your comment, are generated by the bookmarking Web service Diigo. I wrote the summary quickly before reading your blog post in depth just so that I would have something to come back and read later. I agree that the description probably isn't apt, but I'm not going to change it, since it will rotate off my homepage after I bookmark a few more things.

I agree that your post was about genuineness. Absolutely. But my comment to your blog, pardon me if I can't remember it perfectly, deals with your opinion that your media experiences have been heavily filtered and edited -- and those words and their friends drip with negative connotation in your post.

It's easy to say that the mainstream media accounts we see every day are filtered and edited in sinister ways. It's so easy to say that because it's impossible to prove. There is no such thing as objective journalism or media. (The expectation of objectivity is a creation of the 20th century.) With bias everywhere and in every media, calling the modern news filtered is like calling the kettle black.

But having worked in a newsroom or two, I take offense to the negative connotation. Reporters do they best they can with what they have on very tight deadlines.

Having read through your post a second and third time (and yes, I did read it the first time), I still think it's overly optimistic and avoids all possible downsides of social media and lifestreaming. For example, you dismiss the notion of personal privacy as something that only older people cling to, when this is still a thorny, thorny issue.

We're in that optimistic period after a disaster, where it's easy to see the highlights and harder to see the cracks. I don't fault you for your optimism. I just don't think that unbridled positivity good in any situation.

I think your ideas about genuineness are interesting, but I just don't agree with everything you have to say, and I'll leave it with that.

A meet up would be a fine idea someday. Let me know what you have in mind. My contact information is on my Contact page.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

superjaberwocky — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:52:10 -0000

A quick question: Why use a fake e-mail? You can reply to me via e-mail (available on my Contact page) if you don't want to say on the comment board. I'm just curious.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

superjaberwocky — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:50:32 -0000

Yes, it was at times narcissistic, but keep in mind one thing. A lot of the "this tag has reached such-and-such a popularity ranking" was auto-generated by 'bots that haunt Twitter. So some of those comments can be filtered out.

A note too on the repetition. That's necessary on Twitter and other social networks because everyone's friend network on those sites is different. So when I post, it is seen by about 150 people, my Twitter "followers." When someone else posts something, it is seen by his friends.

Now, when you gather people posting who are using one hashtag, you have to remember that they're not only writing for the hashtag's readers but also for their own social networks. That explains some of the repetition.

Yes, a lot of the information on Twitter that day could have been had via other sources, like the radio. A lot of it was not available anywhere else, like the (admittedly rare) tweets from people who were actually "there," the first-hand reports.

But think about this: Why was the Twitter feed any worse than the radio, which was by your own admission, reporting the same news? Why look down on Twitter, when all the radio stations were reporting (and repeating) the same information. The other media outlets in Bozeman were just as echo-chamber-like as Twitter that day; and that's the nature of breaking news.

It's not surprising that you didn't "learn" anything on Twitter that day. It was mostly second-hand information reported by (mostly) citizens without journalism training. Yes, it was hectic and chaotic and repetitive. But that's the nature of the beast. With immediacy and without editors, that's what you're going to get; and with the way that the Twitter service is structured, it's not going to get any "better."

As a side note, it's odd that you should mention John F. Burns, who works for the most Web 2.0-hip news organization in the world. While he may not consciously think about his page views when writing his stories, I guarantee you they matter. Journalism in the real world is about reporting the things people care about -- and therefore what they will pay to read. (I don't like this, but that's the way it is.)

I thank you for your view. I don't think you're being negative at all, just critical and thoughtful, and that's what this discussion is all about. However, I will disagree with you on one thing in particular: It was "reporting" by the strictest definition of the word. Absolutely.

But "reporting" isn't exactly synonymous with "journalism." Was the #bozexplod experience "journalism"? That, I think, is the question.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

Andy — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:24:27 -0000

Phillip -
I think what most technologically savvy people had an issue with is that you took other people's photos/videos, slapped them on your blog, and then submitted to Digg. When you could have just as easily submitted someone else's Flickr, TwitPic, or news story on the subject. No offense here, as I have no idea what your intentions were, but since it says that you are an SEO (Search Engine Optimization) person in your bio, I would assume that you should know that linking to your own blog would cause Manifest to gain (PageRank, Promotion, Brand Awareness, etc.) from this tragic experience. Most normal everyday people probably don't know this, so it could be misconstrued by people with an affinity towards this topic that you are trying to game the system for your own personal gain. Which I believe that no matter how old or new the media is, people do not like to feel deceived in thinking an advertisement is actually a news story. Nor do they like people profiting from tragedy. What has happened here is that people are doubting your intentions, and while a majority of what you posted was awesome, their comes a time when you need to question your own intent, before others do it for you.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

Neal Richter — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:51:28 -0000

subversified - completely agree on the hype sensitivity! Did you see Tranq Jones' blog post this morning? Blathering about the Bozeman explosion compared to Sept 11, etc. So over the top it's nutty. Classic new versus old Montana ethos.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

anon — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:21:57 -0000

I wrote on thurs but used a faux email addy so perhaps my comments were never seen, Michael. I appreciate your taking on this topic.

I'm not a twitter user. But I did look at the posts (tweets, whatever) on Thurs, and as my first extended exposure as a non-user, I'd like to make a lot of observations - observations that I feel are objective (objectivity being sorely lacking in a lot of this discussion).

The most basic of comments about tweets for this event: what is with all of the redundancy? Very flawed, cluttered, and annoying.

A debate about Journalism (and making it some precious and lofty concept) when talking about what was really occurring with the comments seems a waste of time. After, what?, 12 hours of reading #bozexplod, I can honestly say that I don't think I "learned" anything on twitter that wasn't available - easily - somewhere else. I, too, can turn on the radio or stream a press conference and restate what someone said. How is that useful?

This was not reporting; this was rehashing in 140 characters or less. This was commenting.

Even more than blogs, this really seems to be an explosion (no pun intended) in narcissism. I'm not even going to touch the relentless crowing about links and blogs and diggs and photo galleries.

Show me how many times John F. Burns pounds his chest about how many views his reporting for the NY Times gets and then we can talk about Journalism. Journalism isn't gloating or a popularity contest or a game of telephone.

I realize this is a very negative view. Many are glowing about their new "community" of I'm not sure what you all really are..... and there's a very quick and vested knee-jerk reaction of defensiveness about all of the Positive Things that came out of this twitter-bzn phenomenon. Consider me not persuaded : )

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

Tranq Jones — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:12:05 -0000

(not sure this went through the 1st time, so here it is again--delete if duplicated)

I should make one other very important point here, Michael...

You linked my blog using your own tag line that reads: (Social Media: Redefining Genuine) Commentary on what social media did for coverage of the Bozeman explosion.

If you actually read my post, it has very little to do with the actual coverage of the explosion... and has everything to do with this up front highlight within my post: 'Social Media is redefining the word genuine for a new generation of people.' Then I went on to say how social media is building a framework for human communication. The main theme was certainly not twitter vs. journalism... it was how 'many people being in the moment can paint a very whole and genuine interpretation of a given event.'

It seems to me though you picked out a few things relevant to yourself (i.e. journalism) and ran with it. In essence, what you did is critique/interpret my article using your own narrow skew. Then you politely suggested I'm ignorantly optimistic, which I totally welcome by the way as a means for forwarding discussion. But let's be clear... you are being a critic in your above post, and 'critic' is quite different from journalist.

A journalist, really looking for further insight into my post might have called me and asked me to illuminate further what I was trying to say. KTVM actually called me to do just that within an hour of my post. I spent quite a fair amount of time with them discussing some key elements of social media and it was featured during their 5PM news cast that evening. I'm not exactly an anonymous presence on the web... my e-mail address is on my blog, and I am quite easy to find. In fact, I encourage people to contact me as I truly value those personal connections. Much like social media, personal interaction is often very illuminating.

I live in Bozeman. I am on Main Street every day. I think this event is tragic and my heart goes out to all my Bozeman neighbors who are involved. I will be supporting local businesses and doing my part to pitch in and make our community stronger. As a fairly new resident of Montana (from New York City), I'd like to think I bring a unique perspective to the community... which is what my blog tries to accomplish in an irreverent and humorous way. (I'd self describe it as more whimsical than journalistic.) I'll also add that in NYC, I spent over 20 years as a media professional and have worked at most of the major networks in one form or another. Ignorant optimism? Perhaps. I'll leave that for people to decide for themselves. All I ask is that in the spirit of social media, as I throw my voice into the mix, that I have the opportunity to express myself... expression is vital to evolution.

Beyond that, really, we all should get together in downtown Bozeman over a beer,.. and find ways to support each other, and our many Montana neighbors!

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

Philip Downer — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:37:44 -0000

Thanks for your comments Wendy,

I agree that fundamentally there is/was already a large community of Bozemanites using Twitter, and that the common hashtag #bozexplod likely allowed many to find each other and to see just how many of us there are.

However, I can also see - using hard analytics - that a significant portion of the conversation was created by new users with relatively few followers. This indicates to me that many different channels were influential in telling people that Twitter was the best source of news about the Bozeman explosion.

Do I agree that friends were likely the most influential part of spreading the word? ABSOLUTELY. Social networks wouldn't exist without friends; but they still require the platform that Facebook, Digg, Twitter, Reddit, Flickr, MySpace and the myriad others provide.

Wendy, you're spot on... It's always the social aspect, not the technology that compels people. Social networks do not require a computer and internet connection to exist. When we hear a bit of news and call a friend on the telephone, or sit down and have lunch with a group of people, we are participating in a social network. The internet simply fosters faster, larger, more direct communications.

The power of social media (a completely different animal than social networks) becomes apparent when a message spreads from one distinct network to another. When I hear Michelle Wolf on Moose Radio saying that she's posted photos to her Facebook page, then someone posts a link on Twitter or shares it with friends; it begins to spread virally. When photographers post images to Flickr and others comment on the image, it's digital conversation amongst friends.

The question that I feel is at the root of this is "who should say what networks a message should spread on?" I think the answer is obvious. No one should have that power.

It's the internet. The very appeal of social media is that I can choose what works for me. No one has any control of how people will respond, or if they will choose to share. Networks that try to exert too much control are quickly abandoned in favor of less restrictive websites.

However, we as content creators and media participators have a responsibility to create information that is relevant and timely. How this is done will be unique to each individual. We can then gift it to the masses and let them choose if, how and when it will spread.

If promoting, perhaps even over-promoting, just one of the tools that can help a message spread farther and wider than ever before possible is 'hype', then I stand guilty as charged.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

superjaberwocky — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:31:17 -0000

Agreed. I just worry about, like I said, smaller stories being sensationalized by their being cut into "breaking news" style chunks.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

subversified — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:14:14 -0000

I disagree on two of the points you made here, Philip. They're both in one graph, but I want to talk about them separately, so I'm going to quote it twice, bear with me:

"A lot of talk has been made about how there is now a whole Bozeman Twitter community. How did people go from never even having heard of Twitter, to new members and even conversation contributors?"

I don't think most of this community just discovered Twitter - I think they just discovered each other. There's a big difference. It's like we've all been sitting next to each other with our heads down, and finally we've looked around and realized we've got something in common with people we thought were strangers. That's the genesis of a community.

"How did people go from never even having heard of Twitter, to new members and even conversation contributors? It's because all of the channels (Google, Digg, Facebook, Reddit etc.) all pointed there."

This I seriously disagree with. You're confusing the message with the messenger. And maybe the motion, too. Here's what I mean. I don't think Google, Digg, Facebook and Reddit got people to learn about (and use) Twitter and/or care about Bozeman. Their friends did. Their connections did. They may have used those network-building tools to get the message moving, but the reason they care is the socialness - not the technology.

Montanans in general are VERY critical of and sensitive to hype, and the more often you mention Digg, (and link to it) the less credible you look. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to show you where you're making a mistake that's undermining your message.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

Philip Downer — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:27:23 -0000

Hmmm... I'm over my initial "attacked" feelings and looking at this as an interesting discourse on the nature of social media, especially as it applies to breaking news.

Let me preface the following with this statement. We don't make a dime from running this blog. While our visitors are encouraged to click around, we don't display any advertising. It costs a significant amount to provide bandwidth for the more than 30,000 pageviews we've received.

I suppose that we're going to have to agree-to-disagree on your fourth point about our post on Digg.com. The explosion in Bozeman was serious news, one that major news outlets didn't cover for several hours after the explosion. I know that the AP didn't even pick up the story until nearly 11am that morning.

You have to understand that social bookmarking websites like Digg.com are essentially news syndication for web 2.0. In a day and age where article topics like "Nurse buys viagra for sexually frustrated teens" can bury a real news topic in a matter of minutes, our repeated requests were in hopes of keeping the news relevant and accessible.

A lot of talk has gone into how social media played "an integral role in spreading the news". But little thought has gone into how people found that information. Michael, they use search engines. If you're not found on the first page of Google, you may as well be non-existent.

A lot of talk has been made about how there is now a whole Bozeman Twitter community. How did people go from never even having heard of Twitter, to new members and even conversation contributors? It's because all of the channels (Google, Digg, Facebook, Reddit etc.) all pointed there.

By creating a Digg post and consistently requesting that people link to it and vote for it, we were able to ensure that relevant and timely news could be found by those seeking it across a multitude of channels. Again, we don't want ownership of the conversation, we want to supplement it. A lot of thought went into this conversation from our side, and there's a real reason we promoted the Twitter feed as the first words in our blog post.

I argue that every person who responded to our request for a Digg.com vote actually helps promote the conversation and to foster even more community participation. Michael, the key to social media is not to worry about who owns the #bozexplod hashtag you created - because that's not the point - the point is that the conversation belongs to everyone.

Re: Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

Tranq Jones — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:51:22 -0000

First, thanks for engaging me in such a vibrant dialogue, Michael. It is truly welcomed and appreciated. And since you are a journalist, I'm sure you can appreciate a few clarifications...

The main focus of my post was to shed light on how the concept of 'genuine' is changing through use of new media tools. It's the title of the piece and it's referred to numerous times within the post. In no way do I think yesterday's 'reporting' of an an event was a 'revolution' in and of itself, rather, it is another small piece of a larger, ongoing, social media revolution. I'll let people determine for themselves whether the post resonates with them personally.

Regarding the 'definition of a journalist' though, I'm sure that will be debated for awhile. And I suspect it will mostly be debated by journalists... as they are most effected by these new media tools. The event certainly raises powerful questions... Are a few trained journalists better than a conglomerate of unfiltered citizen reporters? Is it always necessary to filter news through professionals? Is there a protocol or at least some semblance of order that needs to be in place for use of these tools? Is protocol even relevant or is the free flow of ideas a more powerful force for conveying information? Do we trust people's ability to interpret raw information? There is much to talk about. We're both local, I'd LOVE to meet over a beer and have a great discussion on all of it.

From my perspective though, in an event such as yesterday, non-expert eyes seem to have interpreted a large portion of the event just fine. And though it was heart-breaking and tragic, it still was an event... not watergate, not a heavily investigative story (not yet anyway!) simply an event. People utilized tools readily available to them to convey it all to the world in a very powerful, direct, way. I think it's fundamental to recognize that in many ways, 'we are all the media' now. We all have the same tools and an equal voice with the power to make that voice heard. I'd call that real democracy... millions of people, chiming in, with a true voice. (Not a voice that has been edited by a select few to determine what is or is not relevant... but many voices that allow people to sort through information and make their own decisions.)

Journalists, rather than putting themselves 'above' citizen reporters or totally discounting them as flawed... I think would be better served to educate them, work with them, and help make their collective voice more relevant. (Which to some degree is already happening... most major media outlets have been including real time content from people during events--and have been doing it for a few years now.) As you've stated, it can be a very strong partnership. In your own words... They aren't mutually exclusive, and they can work together.

I believe that quite strongly as well.