The Downside of Citizen Journalism
Opinion: The lack of editorial oversight opens the door for unfounded allegations that damage credibility, harm reputations and waste time.I am not a big fan of the "citizen journalism" being practiced on the Internet these days. One of the tenets of "real" journalism is that you dont distribute information that hasnt been checked. Citizen publishers are under no such obligation, so the information that winds up in blogs and distributed on mailing lists must always be considered suspect, even if sent with the best of intentions. Why does this matter? Because false information, once distributed, can never really be called back. You can distribute a correction, but some number of people will never see it. To them, the original story will always be the truth. The nasty allegation will never be answered and questions will remain. Responding to these questions and allegations takes someones time and, frankly, most people have better things to do than respond to wacky Internet posts. And sometimes there can be so many posts that its impossible to respond to them all. Or the question may never even get to a person capable of answering it. This is the information ages equivalent of justice delayed being justice denied.
The Internet holds quite an attraction for people who dont think things through and who offer their perhaps well-meaning but ill-informed speculation to the masses. These people should be checking their facts rather than putting out a question that should never have been asked in a public forum. Not that I have a problem with questions, people tell me I ask way too many of them. Its just that public questions can lead to erroneous conclusions.