He of the idea that allowing the citizenry into the ivory towers of the journalistic profession (look, it\’s a trade, alright?) is a very bad idea indeed.

Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don\’t provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn\’t journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

Mmmmmm, and what does this ex-journo now associate professor think should happen?

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.

Why, there should be more work and income for ex-journos now working as associate professors. Remarkable that, isn\’t it?

And what might be the sort of thing that would be taught in such courses?

There are commonly accepted ethical principals — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principals is voluntary.

Clearly not the use of language: you mean principles you self-serving, rent-seeking Stalinist fuckwit. Adhering to the principals is fixing your lips firmly upon the editor\’s fundament which might indeed be a useful career move but it\’s not normally regarded as part of ethical principles.


12 thoughts on “DAVID HAZINSKI”

  1. The #1 thing that bugs journalists is that they don’t have the professional credibility that lawyers, doctors, architects etc have.

    Even actors who just repeat lines written for them by others have more than they do, and that is really scraping the barrel.

    Truth is, as long as you can grip a crayon, you’re a journalist. Actually you don’t even need the crayon or a hand to grip it with. You can just talk into a tape recorder worth £10 at Argos. And even if you don’t have a tongue to talk with, you can presumably grunt to someone to write down for you.

    The barriers to entry are that low.

    If journalists really want professional cred, would they accept a system of getting struck off, with all the personal humiliations and economic hardships that entails?

    Blimey, I think ol’ Polly and 90% of the BBC would have been looking for a new career long ago. Maybe not such a bad idea after all…

  2. No fire here. It’s always been the case that pretty much anybody has a shot at being a journalist – write stuff for free and send it to people, go to a war zone off your own bat, get lucky and get a stringer gig with somebody and not get your head blown off… If you’re any good you get hired, get money, get accepted as a ‘proper’ journalist. Whatever the hell a ‘citizen’ journalist is, they can do this as well, and the ones who’re any good as journalists will.

    It’s actually a market that IMO has worked pretty well for many years, and will continue to do so. Journalism professors pissing around trying to codify things are, in my experience, part of the problem. They fill trainees’ heads with stupid junk that makes them less less readily employable than would otherwise have been the case.

    The notion of journalists wanting professional credibility is amusing though. You sure you’re not confusing them with PR people? (-:

  3. So the guy is a rent seeker, right?

    Sort of like a gangster who has spent years living off the profits of prostitution, and gets steamed up when a new kid arrives on the block? So he starts making a ruckus about the collapse of moral standards?

  4. “the balanced reporting of both sides of a story”

    So that’s most beeb, indie, Groniad and Daily Mail hacks struck off.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    I suspect it is worse than mere rent seeking. Rather it must have struck many of the MSM that blogs are notably Oppositional which means at the moment Right Wing. All the best blogs are to varying degrees on the Right. In fact quite a few of them are on the moderately-Fair Right. The Left Wing ones are mostly crap. Which means, I expect, what he wants is to be a gate keeper for the politically sound. You should not be allowed to Blog unless you are a Guardian-reading former Liberal Arts student.

    Both sides of the story reported? That ought to be against the law in most cases. I see no need to report Osama Bin Laden’s side of the story at all although obviously the BBC and the Guardian think otherwise.

  6. I’d be more impressed with a journalist or associate professor who knew the difference between “principals” and “principles”.

  7. Oh, note to Bob. Read the comments before adding your own…

    Tim adds: I dunno. How about reading the post itself first……:-)

  8. “Both sides of the story reported? That ought to be against the law in most cases. I see no need to report Osama Bin Laden’s side of the story at all although obviously the BBC and the Guardian think otherwise.”

    I disagree. OBL has given his side of the story in every tape he ever released. His side of the story is plain, simple and uncompromising. He was and is devoted to sectarian killing. Read his own words.

    What you read in the graun is what their hacks want you to think about OBL, despite his own clearly stated intentions concerning your funeral.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Monty, I agree. I was wrong. Osama does indeed give his side of the story. The BBC and the Guardian give the story they wish he would give. Mea culpa.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *