By Andrew Kantor, USA Today
Between broadband Internet access, inexpensive camcorders, simple audio and video editing tools — not to mention YouTube — the power of "citizen journalists" has increased tremendously in the past couple of years.
Bloggers have broken major stories and caused the mainstream media to tread more carefully. But, as Peter Parker would say, "With great power comes great responsibility." (And he is a professional journalist.)
Bloggers and other amateur journalists have some of the same problems any amateurs do: They make up the rules as they go, and they run the risk of screwing up and hurting someone. But because blogging isn't their day job, they have little risk — they aren't going to be fired
Professionals are constrained; they can't just do as they please. If I want to upgrade the electrical service in my house, I can do it myself or call a pro. If I do it myself, I can do what I like and hope it's good enough. If a pro comes, though, he has to follow detailed building codes — he's constrained, but the end result is likely better.
Lowes and Home Depot have given amateurs the ability to do work that was once the province of pros, and inexpensive digital technology has given amateurs the ability 'do' journalism. But just as amateur with a set of power tools can do great work or build a deathtrap, amateur journalists can do the same.
Having the tools and using them wisely are two different things.
In their rush to get the Big Scoop — something pros know come few and far between — bloggers and other citizen journalists love, for example, to blow small things out of proportion. After all, they don't have editors to say, "You need more" or "That's not a story."
Molehills and mountains
Imagine you're at a party, and you see someone you've met briefly before.
"Hi, Sue," you say.
"Hi, Andrew," she replies. "But my name's Jane."
You're embarrassed, but you apologize and get on with the conversation – no harm, no foul.
Now imagine that some other people overheard your gaffe. Instead of being embarrassed for you, they start telling everyone "Andrew got Jane's name wrong."
Sheesh, you think, It was just a stupid mistake.
But instead of simply dying out, the conversation about your slip picks up, and enters the realm of speculation.
"Jane's so pretty," says one person, "that there's no way Andrew would just forget her name." (In fact, you did simply forget.)
"I heard him complain about work once," says someone else. "He's probably in the office working late."
"I saw him take a pill in the bathroom," chimes in another. "My sister's boyfriend is a pharmacist, and it looked like Prozac to me." (It was an aspirin.)
You try to protest, but it's too late. Within hours, they're certain you have drug problems, hate your job, are seeing a shrink, and/or are pining for someone named Sue.
Welcome to the blogosphere, where speculation becomes fact, and where self-proclaimed "experts" offer opinions about as worthwhile (but well spoken) as creation science. Where wild guesses are pitched as absolutes, and where small gaffes are blown into major affairs.
Expert nonsense
Remember the O.J. Simpson trial? A photo expert named Robert Groden testified that a shot of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was fake.
When 30 more photos surfaced showing Simpson wearing the shoes, the value of Groden's testimony — and expertise — was clear. Zilch.
Too many people are technology neophytes. You can make anything sound convincing to them especially if you have the word "expert" next to your name. Toss in some fancy terms ("the pixilation quotient in these sections indicates deliberate alpha-channel manipulation"), don't offer alternatives that a more savvy person would know ("standard sharpening could have done the same thing") and speak with authority ("I've been studying photos for 20 years") and you can make anything sound believable.
These kinds of back-seat "experts" are a dime a dozen on the Net. They find photo fakery where there is none, and hold up small gaffes as evidence of a vast conspiracy.
Of course, there are cases where bloggers catch the bad guys red-handed; witness the photos from Adnan Hajj that Reuters published — photos where smoke had been added to Beirut in one case, and flares added to an Israeli fighter in another.
Unfortunately, for every legitimate "catch," there are plenty of unjustified smears made by bloggers with axes to grind.
Amateur actions
Take the blog that exposed those Reuters/Adnan Hajj photos — Little Green Footballs (LGF). It's written by a Web designer from California named Charles Johnson.
Johnson took offense to a column by Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher magazine, in which Mitchell decried the baseless attacks on war photographers after the Hajj affair.
So Johnson went from using his technology toolbox like a pro to using it like an amateur. He dug up an article Mitchell wrote in 2003 in which Mitchell admitted that — more than 30 years ago — he faked some quotes while working for a local newspaper in Niagara Falls.
Mitchell was clearly embarrassed — it went against his professional ethics enough that 30 years later he told the story. But what was Johnson's take? He claimed it as proof that Mitchell had "first-hand experience with staging news."
Calling it "staging news" or saying Mitchell "faked a news story" was a bit off the deep end, and neither accusation would have gotten by a professional editor. But Johnson isn't a professional. He's just a guy with a toolbox. He had great success using it, helping to expose the faked Bush National Guard memos, as well as those Adnan Hajj photos.
But he mistook having a well-worn set of professional tools with being equivalent to a well-followed set of pro principles.
Amateur journalists are here to stay, and they contribute tremendously to the journalism profession. But if they hope to be taken seriously — beyond a handful of press passes or a few well-publicized scoops — they need to take that next step beyond a nice toolbox. They need to learn the best ways to use it.
