Many bloggers are experts in their fields. For example Powerlineblog.com features 3 actual Constitutional lawyers that have argued before the Supreme Court.

The true 'fascists' are the unaccountable "journalists" of the MainStreamMedia whose expertise is limited and arrogance reinforced by the echo chamber of their own manufacture within which they operate.

Look no further then Dan Rather...

He was exposed by the blogger swarm.

So now the MSMs squeal because they are held accountable... yeah. That's really totalitarian.

Dear Ephraim,

I see your point, and agree with it. I remember reading some User Group (the Old Days) posts that were totally off-topic with the purpose of the group. And I have had my wife point out comments from the on-line groups that she watches.

Professional journalist's moderate ideas? Nonsense. That stopped when Walter Cronkite start giving his editorial instead of the news. That stopped when national security secrets are were published. What you are witnessing are people seeking their favorite editorial view point. The "professionals" are losing their relevance. A pathetic example of this is watching a talking head read from a "My Space" blog on the local news. Yes, the public can be a menace, but now the market-place is not monopolized by the few Hearst mongers making the news for us. May the ideas that stand tests of truth and time prevail! Sure public sentiment can be bought, but if we fail to realize the true when we find it, we get what we deserve.

Damn pinko commie. When was the last time you beat your wife?

Journalism is a bogus `profession'. It's a mere activity. I do recall a decades-ago English class lesson about how to write a news story--- `who, what, when, why and where'. Some of my fellow high school students took a class in journalism. Their job was to put out the school newspaper and yearbook. That's all that the `field' requires, a high-school education. Given that the so-called professional journalists have become leftist operatives, and given that it is indeed the case that anyone who has obtained an education, by whatever means, can write, it's no wonder that the so-called professionals are being replaced. A good screening criterion for a new-hire journalist would be that they have never taken a college-level course in journalism.

Another very real danger, one that is already occurring, I am afraid, is that fewer people, especially the younger, technically-oriented ones, are getting factual hard news, but are merely getting most of there 'infromation' and views on both world and local events by merely reading what other people are saying about them, second-hand, at best, and biased and poorly researched most likely-

For me, the benefit of a global communications capability such as the internet has provided far outweighs the risks Mr Schwartz enumerates.

Good example: we already have "thought leaders" who do their best to steer their local audience (or congregation) in a particular direction, and a very few of them reach the status of having a much broader audience with national or even international implications. Here's the thing, though: the broader audience, because they can *talk to each other instantly*, are capable of preventing the very kinds of horrific events cited in the article.

Charlatans are more-easily exposed when they can't simply change their location to start over.

Are people sometimes hurt by the fact that someone can now provide completely false information about them for the world to see? Yes, and the pain can come in large doses and almost instantaneously.

Ask Alex Baldwin how quickly a hot-tempered dad leaving a voice message can become a nationally broadcast embarrassment. I don't mention him to open the debate about what kind of parents he and his former wife are, but to point out that leaving a really ugly voice message for someone twenty years ago would never have resulted in the kind of event this turned out to be.

So, the instantaneous nature of communications is much like all of life always is: a tool which can be used for purposes meant to heal or harm.

Is there danger in citizen journalism? Of course. Again, my stance is that the benefits far outweight the dangers mentioned. There are plenty of examples of regular citizens exposing the media for spinning a story to meet the needs of its owners or advertisers. Likewise, there are citizens who flat make stuff up. I like to think it will all come out in the direction of what is really happening, and sooner as a result of citizen journalists rather than later.

What I never see happening is any significant portion of the population choosing to *diminish* the number of sources they look to for news. Yes, traditional print media may be dead in ten years, but the online offspring will be going strong. And, yes: so will the amateur journalists be, as well.

Courageous thoughtful journalism, Ephraim. Thank You. You should have also wrote that our system of government absolutely hinges on a free and capable press. When the press is not there or is apathetic or cowed, only bad things come.
Infoworld is still the best in CTJ.

Mr. Schwartz perhaps has too much confidence in the "professional" journalist. He states: "I'm saying citizen journalism, where nonprofessionals report on and write the news, will devolve over time. Citizen journalism will become a platform for so-called thought leaders to vent their biased, possibly hateful opinions. If you go to a racist Web site, of which there are plenty, you know what to expect. But when you go to a site or read a blog that wears the mantle of citizen journalism, it is another story." The "mainstream" media, while not quite as over-the-top as those racist sites he describes, are still essentially masquerading "biased...opinions" under the mantle of "news". How different are the Dan Rathers, Matt Drudges and Bill O'Reillys from the "thought leaders" he fears so much? He says with a straight face: "Let's face it, besides the good things about living in a small community, there are also the busybodies, the ones who think they are the community watchdogs and censors. They don't see or understand the value of impartiality or the benefit of standing on the outside and looking in. Is that who you want to get your information from? Journalists remain a voice of reason and a moderating voice. But now we seem to value "thought leaders," so-called experts who have their own agenda. They claim to know more and are willing to steer the discussion in the direction they choose." Yet he doesn't seem to realize that the journalist "profession" long ago gave up the veneer of "impartiality". Is there a danger that fools will read something on the internet and assume it is the "truth" and act upon it? Yes, but there was always this danger with Yellow Journalism (think Spanish American War). I welcome the information competition. Will checks and balances need to evolve? Of course. Will consumers have to become smarter with how they pick up their "news"? Yes. He seems to wistfully want to return to the days of blindly trusting "authority", because "they" know best. Sadly, those days were ended by the turbulence of the twentieth century.

Ephraim:

Thanks for your thought-provoking discussion.

While the possibility of devolution into oppressive groupthink online is real, such competition isn't going away by wishing it. The print world faces huge competition partly because of the crummy job it's doing. In addition to the expose of the fake Bush National Guard faxes (the "Rather memos") by a blogswarm, there are more current ones, such as the reprehensible job the mainstream media has done on covering the Duke Non-Rape Case. And NBC's rush to air video from a mass murderer covers them in no glory, in the eyes of many viewers.

And the alternative, namely Government-licensed journos a la Japan or Russia, or (quite possibly soon) France should offend anyone who values the truth, as you clearly do. While blogs face the risk of Godwin's Law every day (URL above), the mass paid media face a threat of slipping into irrelevance by their own complacency, not merely because of "free" online media. And "free" media, by their nature, only choke off debate among those who choose to visit the site--you're always free to point your browser elsewhere. That's hardly a complete answer, since there are only so many eyeballs, but the Web is more competitive than, say, a town with only one morning newspaper.

I, myself, mourn the passing of InfoWorld as a print publication, and the crummy state of many daily newspapers (including my local Los Angeles Times) with no joy. Competition, and better performance by those who are paid to cover the news, are the best possible antidote to the threat of mob media.

--Alex Pournelle

You need to check your definitions. Citizen journalism could conceivably lead to mob rule or could be exploited by fascism, but the real danger of fascism is in the corporate-compromised so-called mainstream media. This is the media that beat the drums for war in Iraq (including the Washington Post and the New York Times, mind you). This is the media that still, after the Democrats have won Congress, overrepresents Republican and conservative points of view, especially on television. This is the media that until very recently rolled over and asked the Bush White House to scratch its belly in exchange for childishly credulous access to the latest Rovian spin - and was willing to type up that spin as if it were true even when the reporter *knew* it was a lie. This is the media that stridently dumps on the earth tones and the haircuts of prominent Democrats, while fawning over Duhbya playing dress-up as a fighter pilot, a rancher, or even a man in control.

So, while I still read widely in the daily press, no one who wants to be informed can omit the citizen journalism of the Internet, particularly the blogs. The virtue of the Internet, at least, is that there is more than one mob. The mainstream media practices much more "journamalism" than real journalism anyway. When the mob comes, if it does, the mainstream media won't protect us from fascism.

I agree with you that phrases like "citizen journalists" or "thought leaders" sounds Orwellian. However, where are the unbiased journalists or newspapers? Although denied, there appears to be a clear inclination in the reporting of CNN, FoxNews, or The New York Times. Furthermore, instead of getting the straight, unbiased news, we get "specified" reporting where things are one way or "balanced" for the sake of making a point. If you don't believe this is the case, take a look at any reporting on Middle East issues; they invariably get "balanced" toward the Arab side. I don't have a problem in reporting the truth, no matter how hard it is to either side; no matter what side that is (I'm not just talking Middle East here). I do have a problem with the lack of objectivity and the mixing of apples and oranges.

Sound like someone trying to protect their phony baloney job. Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron.

BTW- if you don't like the name calling and other political topics on your Harley board just ignore those topics. Stick to topics about carbs and ape hangers. The few idiots that feed on each other are easy to avoid.

Also traditional print media HAS been dead for ten years - wake up and smell the coffee.

To the commentor who questioned my belief that journalism is a profession and who said all you need is a high school diploma, I say yes, you're right.

You don't need an advanced degree to be a good journalist. What you need is a modicum of intelligence, skepticism, lots of curiosity, and the ability to string some sentences together coherently.

Oh yes, and a very strong belief that fairness is a virtue to strive for.

I agree that there will be a tendency to voice one's opinion rather than just reporting what is happening.

However, there is a large contingent of the country who feel that the professional reporters are doing that already. And that what gets on the air (newspapers are a little different, but less people seem to be reading them) is often the most sensational news. Portrayed in the most sensational way.

In Iraq for example, NOTHING good ever happens. It is all negative. The US military is fallible, and wrong, like everything human. But I doubt that they are batting .000, so why don't we hear about the successes expressed in a positive way. Because soldier starting a school or getting clean water to a village is not news. And that's still a bias.

I, believe that most of the blogging citizen journalism was caused by the media in the first place.
Like when an event occurs suchas 9/11, Virginia Tech or local tragedy the spews journalists and producers run around interviewing anybody that wants to say something even if they were not originally there or have no connection to the event and broadcast this misinformation 24/7 for weeks globally.
The news media itself became the inciter of mob media.

I think there are a lot of things wrong with getting your news and information solely or mostly from blogs. But fascism is the wrong label. I think that our traditional media are closer to the corporatist model. Journalists work for media outlets, the ownership of which is becoming increasingly concentrated. The companies that own these television and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and "mainstream" websites are, quite naturally, in business to make a buck. So, anything that attracts an audience is good, so long as it doesn't upset the advertisers or the politicians who make laws governing the ownership of media and the use of public airwaves. If you want to see a classic example of this, look at the run-up to the war in Iraq, where a very efficient propaganda machine emerged from the interaction of the government's desire to make a case for war, the media's lust for the "best" story (that is, the one that most roused the passions of viewers or readers), and a feedback loop of public opinion that drove both.

America's founding fathers were careful to establish a representative democracy with limits on the power of the state over the freedoms of the individual. Referenda originally arose as a tool citizens could use, in extraordinary cirmcumstances, to wrest back control of their government when it had been corrupted by special (usually monied) interests. The low threshold for placing issues on the ballot these days reflects increasing public alienation from government. That racists, homophobes, and xenophobes take advantage of this is truly unfortunate.

The problems I see with blogging are the downside we have to accept if we want freedom. Every idiot with a PC can have a blog, and the more fanatical they are about their particular cause, the more likely they are to spend the time and money necessary to promote it. It's human nature to be drawn to ideas that are comfortable and familiar. They don't always happen to be good or right. Since it's uncomfortable to have your parochial viewpoint challenged, people will aggregate into communities of like-minded individuals, reinforcing their own views, and giving them a false sense that everyone agrees with them. (Or worse, a sense that it's Us, who know and understand the truth, against Them, who are ignorant and deluded.) This can happen with traditional news outlets as well. I suspect there isn't a lot of overlap between the audience for Frontline and The News Hour on PBS on the one hand and Fox News on the other.

At the end of the day, blogging and "citizen journalism" are like most other communication tools, with both good and pernicious aspects. I think the great value of your article, which I applaud, is that it (bravely) is willing to raise the idea that there is a downside to this form of media, too.

What are you afraid of? Someone holding you to a higher journalistic standard? Yeah, I am sure Dan Rather agrees with you too. Wake up. The left is now being challenged on the veracity of their claims and so they have to whine like the little children they are.

Well, journalist have brought it upon themselves by being toothless and not exactly bright. It is a rare thing that a journalist does his or her homework and challenges the person that they interview. They just report what they hear and any of us can do that.

Yeah, sometimes people get really abusive in blogs. It's just a million times worse than the real journalism we get from, say, Rush Limbaugh. We are so blessed in America that no major corporate money goes into supporting hate speech and narrow minded bigotry. You really nailed the problem, Ephraim; it's all those nasty citizens with the effrontery to think their opinions actually matter. There ought to be a law.

After Viet Nam I thought I would never seen my country as divided as it was then. That was nothing! Seeing a comment like "Given that the so-called professional journalists have become leftist operatives" proves your point. That person needs only to watch the mob at Fox or listen to the First Amendment thrashers at Clear Channel (re: Dixie Chicks) with an open mind to see how crazy that is! It's all about insinuation and character assasination.

The MSM also have their own agenda.

Examples: listening to CNN as my wife watched a lengthy report on the Virigina Tech shooting, I heard a CNN person interview the owner of the gun shop where Mr. Nutcase bought one of his weapons, asking the owner if he felt guilty for selling the weapon. I heard them interview Carolyn McCarthy about guns, as well.

But they never mentioned the previous school shooting in Virginia. Why not? Could it be because that shooter was stopped by private citizens who retrieved guns from their cars? BTW, at the time most news reports failed to mention the citizens' guns, merely saying they had "subdued" the shooter.

Every time there is a shooting like this, the same theme is spouted by the MSM - "restrict gun ownership!" They raise no such cry when other methods are used to kill large numbers of people. Example: the "Happy Land Fire" (87 killed with a gallon of gasoline in 1990).

There's no real objectivity in the MSM - so I'm more comfortable listening to people on either side who tell me "where they sit" before saying "where they stand". At least with them I have some idea as to which way they're leaning, and can weigh their comments accordingly.

People who do not think for themselves seem to be the ones who use the word "fascism" in every other sentence.

Frankly, the "news media" in the United States has completely failed the people of this great nation. The obvious extreme left bias leaks out every day in every news article that I see and hear. What passes for independent news has simply become blatant political propoganda, slanted to only one side of the issues.

No wonder bloggers have taken up the issues and investigated them. Apparently, the news media is not interested in investigations any more, unless those investigations expose their political enemies (aka conservatives). When a scandal erupts involving someone who is "liked" by the biased media, the story is either buried on page 100, or never comes out at all.

I would suggest that "professional journalists" look in the mirror regularly, before calling someone else a "fascist".

Smart article, Ephraim. There is a minefield of similar consequences that only a tiny percentage of thoughtful people identify. The particulate matter of the digital age is creating an increasingly impenetrable fog. I think we have entered a digital “feudal age� where criminal or commercial marauders roam the internet plains dotted with fortresses large and small secured by their firewalls, anti-virus and intrusion prevention mechanisms. Heaven help the unprotected and ignorant.

Sorry, folks, but anybody who starts a rant about "fascist journalism" by defending Dan Rather has a serious problem of perspective - not to mention credibility.

But there's a bigger point here - how did this political op-ed get past the Infoworld editors in the first place?

Re: Post above by Art_H

I am afraid you need to read a little bit more carefully.

I did not defend Dan Rather. I said what happened with Rather helped spur the acceptance of blogs.

Second, Reality Check is a column, which means it is supposed to feature the writer's opinion as this column did. However, one of the few parts of the column where my opinion was not registered was when I talked about Rather.

The hypocrisy of this speak piece is beyond measure. Mr. Schwartz says beware of the thought police rather than the integrity and professionalism of his journalistic peers in an editorial which is nothing more than his opinion based on what he observes and thinks??? It's a lot like listening to a salesperson who is saying "Trust me, I'm a professional."

The blogs have their place as does the print and electronic media. By reading multiple news sources for the facts and reading the various blogged opinions, I think I can make better decisions. The danger for people to fall into step of some fascist opportunists is grossly overstated.

This column is called Reality Check. Please get real.

I agree with Mr. Ephraim Schwartz when he writes: "... let me offer a very cynical point of view:...". He opines that "citizen journalism will devolve over time" into a "platform for so-called thought leaders to vent their biased, possibly hateful opinions." I suggest his fears have already been realized in well known national and international news outlets of so-called professional journalists. That, in large part, gave rise to citizen journalism. Look no further than the Dan Rather incident and the faked memo. If the standard news outlets would present the news without the boilerplate talking points and biased views, then the need for alternative news sources would dwindle. Any medium, including alternative news sources, can use their platform for harm, but this is nothing new. Numerous instances of citizen blogs are helping to keep the "professional" journalists honest. I say: more power to them!

Dan Rather is but one example of MSM journalists attempting to pass off their personal opinions and misinformation as News. That is why many of us have dropped the network news and the local newspapers from our daily activities.

In the IT field, Groklaw is an example of actual information from a blog since the media including InfoWorld decided not to cover the SCO scam.

I have written several journalists and invariably get responses that sound like your column. These journalists are the 21st century version of buggy whip manufacturers.

We already have "mob media" and none of them have their facts straight about anything.

Why did we invade Iraq? Iraq conducted a test release of a bio weapon inside China during the winter of 96/97. It is now global thanks to birds. It is still mutating and the experts have no idea if and when it will spread wildly through the human population. The guilty party met justice at the end of a rope.

Why did Sandy Berger get away with boosting classified docs (stuffed in his clothing. maybe socks and under shorts)? To conceal information related to the previous paragraph and recover his notes. He is such a sloppy caretaker of critical data!

Why are important US and global economic issues ignored by most democrats and republications who are not seated on the right committees and therefore not entitled to the really scary briefings? Because a large solid object will collide with our planet in a few years. Many of us will survive but the economy as we know it will not. So let's maintain the illusion until then. It's more pleasant for everyone.

Why do governments conceal the existence of visitors using advanced technology to travel across time and distance to set foot on our planet? Because they have no answers. They have no idea who the visitors are, where they come from or why.

What is the real purpose and capability of the National Underwater Reconnaissance Office? I don't know and neither does the traditional media or mob media.

True journalism has already disappeared. "Journalist" publish what they feel and think or what their editor feels and think -- not truth. Facism already exist in the "professional" realm along with slander and sensationalism. Journalist do not know how to research for the truth any more and are only concerned with what will sell to a sick society. Truth can not be found. Citizen journalist are currently the only check and balance system we may have on "professional" journalist -- as scary as that may be. Step up to the plate "journalist" and then the citizens wouldn't have to.

Seems that the main stream media has already become the "fascist thought leaders of the day". Look at how the reporting from each of the mainstream sources (AP, Reuters, NBC, ABC, CBS, and even Fox) all report the same stories from the same viewpoint. The only thing that makes Fox even remotely "conservative" is that they actually employ real conservative commentators and aren't quite as aggressive in a "blame America first" approach.
One need only look at the runup to the last election: the bias was obvious. Ditto the unfiltered use of stories from Arab stringers during the Lebanon action last summer. It was citizen journalists who were pointing out that the ambulance allegedly hit by an Israeli missile was in way too undamaged a state for this to have been true -- the main stream media chose to run the story unfiltered because it fit their template.
It seems the citizen journalists provide a counterpoint and balance to the increasingly left-biased media. Just as the main stream media so arrogantly declares itself to be the fourth branch of government, publishing state secrets, attempting to bring down a president and assuring the change in power in the legislative branch, the citizen journalists serve as a watchdog and check on the unfettered power of the mainstream media.

Those of you accusing the main stream media of conservative bias are either to the left of Mao or not paying much attention. e.g. I defy you to name 5 positive things that the main stream media reported on from Iraq last week. Now, name 5 negative events from Iraq reported.

There's a pungent elitism wafting up from just below the surface of Ephraim's column. The unspoken premise is that readers can't tell the difference between good journalism and bad, rhetoric and thought, facts and opinion. So it's up to those who *can* tell the difference to make sure the rest of us get the "right" information, not incidentally filtered through the viewpoint of that elite group.

Too many people want to ignored Ephraim's insight. No one wants to believe that the Toppix folks are just waiting for the chance to hang those who traffick with Satan, and of course every flame war in a forum is the ideological godchild of Kristallnacht.

The next thing you know, some dumbass will actually enshrine the rights of citizens to publish and share their views freely into the Constitution -- thus ending the American experiment with democracy and ushering in a 21st century Il Duce.

Ephraim I don't think you're giving enough credit to people, or more importantly to people's ability to adapt.

I think with the rise of the Internet has come a (slowly) rising sensibility of the bullshit that comes with freedom of mass expression, like on the Internet. More and more people are questioning sources, and claims, because they know that just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true.

This can only be a good thing! At the moment people don't question major news outlets because they assume them to be bastions of truth and fairness (which can sometimes be far from the whole story). A certain apathy has developed towards our media, because someone ELSE will do the fact checking for us. We can relax. Consumers of media, thanks to the internet, are developing a healthy cynicism towards what they read, where they read it, why it's written a certain way, etc. This will only develop further.

Stirring article, Mr. Schwartz. Could you define "journalist" for me? It is broadly interpreted here. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are mentioned, yet they make clear distinctions between reporting the news and arguing their opinions. Fox News is trashed for having conservative commentators, but it accurately reports actual news and allows people on both sides of its interpretation to have their say. My local paper and public radio claim to be an unbiased representative of the truth, yet pick and choose what to call news and present it with their bias. CNN and the networks are doing the same.
Who are the "journalists"? Are they the newsreaders, reporters, editors, analysts, commentators, or all of the above. Regardless, and sadly, I trust the weather person to be more honest and accurate than any journalist these days. At least in the mainstream media. Are journalists in technical areas different?

Thanks

"there are also ... the ones who think they are the community watchdogs and censors. They don't see or understand the value of impartiality or the benefit of standing on the outside and looking in."

That sounds like YOU. YOU want to control the information people get from the outside.

"I guarantee at some point some local citizen journalist will ask why Mr. Jones down the street doesn't put out a flag on July 4th."

Sorry, Mr. Journalist, you're behind the curve. That's already happened. But it isn't about a flag. It's about why so-and-so isn't a Democrat and related topics. I'll speculate you've participated in such conversations.

"Journalists remain a voice of reason and a moderating voice."

Says the journalist. Sorry, Dan Rather and the way 'journalists' circled their wagons around him killed that.

"But now we seem to value 'thought leaders,' so-called experts who have their own agenda. They claim to know more and are willing to steer the discussion in the direction they choose."

Again, sounds like YOU.

"To my ears, 'citizen journalists' and 'thought leaders' sound like words straight out of a George Orwell novel."

So what Orwell novel contains concepts like that? "1984" is the only candidate I can think of. And there all the media was controlled by the government, the exact opposite of your contention.

"Maybe I'm wrong. But as more and more people stop reading newspapers and depend on online community sites to get their information, I see the danger and it may just be too late."

Yes, you're wrong. People are exposed to more news and different opinions than ever before, from established news organizations' web sites as well as other sources. If you think that's dangerous, YOU have a serious problem.

You're afraid YOU'RE no longer a 'thought leader'. Naturally, you'd think that's dangerous.

Nice try, fear-monger. And you've really stepped in it. You're going to get a lot of attention (not the good kind) from the blogosphere, both left and right.

Ephraim Schwartz, in his above blog post:

"I am not a cynic and a skeptic because I am a journalist. I admit those attributes came first and are the reason I probably was attracted to journalism."

Ephraim Schwartz, in a 2006 column:

"Carrington points to TXU , a Capgemini customer and the fifth largest utility in the country, which saved $150 million in the first year by outsourcing....The savings, according to Carrington, were easy to determine because Capgemini quoted a price $150 million less than what it cost TXU to do the same work."

If that's Schwartz being cynical and skeptical, heaven help us if he ever turns gullible.

Almost forgot, here's another classic from that paragon of cynical skepticism, Ephraim Schwartz...

From 2005:
"Burlington Coat Factory has saved anywhere from 300 percent to 500 percent by using StarOffice instead of Microsoft Office, Prince says, and so far it has worked flawlessly, including reading macros from Excel, PowerPoint, and Word documents."

Say what you will, but no "citizen journalist," especially one who passed eighth-grade math, could land a scoop like that!

I agree the risk for these kinds of developments exists. But I'm not sure the traditional way of seperating professional journalists from mere citizens is a good filter. Professional means that a person gets paid for what he/she does. Yes, sometimes it goes along, at least superficially, with some form of professional ethics. But do you really claim that the ability to get some kind of funding is what what seperates extremists from moderates? I would assume that quite a few extremist publications and websites are well funded and in this sense professional.

I think what is important is that broadly published opinion gets some kind of scrutiny by society. This scrutiny is as yet underdeveloped in the area of citizen journalism. It is much more advanced and works to some degree for professional journalism. But is it not possible that new forms of public scrutiny evolve along with this new kind of journalism? I believe it is.

Take any new phenomenon, social or technical, and you will always see real dangers. You can always argue that these dangers might lead to catastrophy. But most of the time they don't, because checks and balances eventually evolve. The question is to what extent is it healthy if such moderating developments lag behind? Is there a need for regulation or are we just too jumpy? I don't know.

"I guarantee at some point some local citizen journalist will ask why Mr. Jones down the street doesn't put out a flag on July 4th."

Because *real* journalists don't do that, hey?

Ephraim Schwartz writes:

"The Dan Rather case comes to mind. In that case, it was a blogger who said the letter Rather was using to base his story on President Bush trying to avoid active duty during the Vietnam War was a fake."

Oh, my... it was just *a* blogger, who *said* the letter was a fake. So Mr. Schwartz thinks that Dan Rather was just a victim a witch hunt based on a single rumor, rather than someone who knowingly used a forged document in an attempt to change the outcome of a presidential election?

Pathetic.

It sounds like you're more afraid of the threat posed by independents to corporate-controlled/advertising-driven journalism. After all, InfoWorld has just shuttered it's print edition to go all-online, causing a bunch of professional journalists to lose their jobs. This is likely due to the competition from bloggers and other independent online thought-leaders. Your ideas in this article seem to better serve the ideals of your corporate employer than freedom of speech.

I don't see a fascistic danger in allowing citizens to write and publish. In fact I welcome it as a catalyst of political and social change. Bloggers, independent journalist, or anti-corporate thought leaders have the potential to be The New Pamphleteers, the Thomas Paines of our age.

The danger of fascism doesn't lie with the individual. Fascism exists when absolute power is coalesced in the hands of the few. And now with corporate media giants dominating what we see and hear, "news organizations" which blindly accept the real fascistic creep of the current administration, we need citizen writers more than ever.

Of course, freedom can manifest itself in many ways. Intellectual freedom can give rise to both dictators and rebels, but that's the price we pay in extending the right to air all points of view (even if we don't agree with that point of view). To complain that their is danger in citizens speaking, in writing, in using words of any sort to communicate a message is the most phenomenally dangerous thing I have ever heard.

To me it seems that your column was written in haste. It is poorly thought out and I urge you to reconsider your thoughts.

In the final analysis, all that media outlets and personnel have to offer us is integrity - the perception of an intellectually-honest dealing with information.

As soon as an outlet lies in a matter a listener/reader knows about, then everything else that outfit purveys becomes suspect. For if you're lying to me about issues in which I've competence, what sort of lies are you telling about those in which I've not?

Deliberate misrepresentations are also a kind of consumer fraud too. By lying to us in 'news articles', you also poison any advertising by your commercial supporters.

BTW, your sponsoring organization should know that I have any 'sponsored by Microsoft' newsletters automatically directed to the Trash folder. No sane person, nor any competent professional either, uses any M$ product whatsoever on a system that's connected to the Internet...

I disagree with Ephraim Schwartz. I guess he still has to see a lot of the world and understand its working. What he has stated is only one sided picture.

I am a professional journo too and believe me today's media is not at all democratic and lives by its adverts. If a simple concept like citizen journalism comes up, it can provide a platform to really give a view without being biased.

Everything depends on how a site or its editorial handles the situation? It is not always about page views and it is not always a profit based too. But a chance for people to report news that otherwise may go unreported due to lack of space in print media.

There are many other reasons...this concept is stil in its nascent stage, if its so bad then crucify all medias, why just this?

DK

You are stunningly wrong here, and insulting to boot.

So we citizens are not to be trusted with information, while you "professional" voices of reason and moderation are? Astonishing. You can't possibly be living in the same America the rest of us are.

If "professional" journalists are to be the guardians of our freedom, they've made a pathetic showing of it over the last 6 years. They've been willing conduits for disastrous lies. They've fiddled and nattered while we've suffered the most sustained internal assault on American democracy in our history. If not for the so-called citizen journalists, we wouldn't know half of what has occurred. The professionals have abdicated their duty.

If you're afraid of people getting propaganda fed to them, the answer is to *increase* the channels and volume of communication, not stifle the few that actually aren't controlled by economic interests. Fascism is far more likely to proceed from an alliance between corporatist interests and an authoritarian state than it is to arise from the citizenry. Read your history.

In fact, read your newspaper and the Web. It's happening today.

The fact that you don't know this suggests that it doesn't matter who writes the news if folks refuse to read it.

Ephraim,

You used the Dan Rather case as the inroads into writing this article and as the basis for the start of "citizen journalism".

Too bad these introductory statements are false which makes me suspicious of the rest of the article. You didn't follow one of the rules any good journalist follows and that is to report based upon fact. The person who exposed Dan Rather's fakery was a reporter in Wash DC, Robert Bluey. Not a "citizen journalist" as you make him out to be.

Please see these two sources and you will find that Mr. Bluey is as much a professional journalist as you:
http://www.robertbluey.com
http://www.mediaresearch.org/flash/2004/issue9_04.pdf

Mr. Schwartz, I agree. It seems we always focus on "leadership", and the leaders who appear to have wrought historical transformation (for good or for ill).

But what about "followership"? To my understanding, Adolph Hitler didn't physically bloody his hands with the killing of a single victim -- millions of separate acts by many thousands of complicit individuals were necessary to pile up the horrific total.

An additional concern about "The Internet Mob": maybe "leaders" are now obsolete.

"Mommy, the other kids won't play gatekeeper with me any more! They're poopie fascist-heads!"

Ephraim, you are both right and wrong. You are right insofar as the things you describe can happen. You are wrong that we should especially care. The threat of mob mentality against which you rightly caution us exists independently from the specific technical details by which the mob memes propagate themselves, and the propagation of groupthink in online communities is more self-limiting than you realize.

The argument you make here is that "fairness" is a trait coincident with professional journalism, and that as a result journalistic truth can only come ex cathedra. This is pure poppycock. Some people are driven towards fairness; others are not. Some of each camp become professional journalists.

Good money says you have an idealistic notion of professional news organizations that will dismiss a biased journalist in the interest of preserving the organization's reputation and credibility. This despite a torrent of evidence to the contrary, particularly in recent years. News organizations are businesses whose success is directly determined by their ability to appeal to popular tastes. If striving for the most broadly defined ideal of fairness results in lower circulation or ratings, then fairness goes right out the window. This is the explicit business model of certain contemporary professional news outlets, and easily inferred from the behavior of others.

In such an environment the professional news media become an echo chamber for popular mobthink in precisely the same way you fear from citizen journalism. The differences that arise between the two involve sincerity and credibility. When professional news organizations appeal to the mob it isn't because they believe what they say; it is because they want the increased audience such pandering yields. Despite this risk of insincerity due to conflicting organizational interests, professional journalists are rewarded with an automatically credulous audience by virtue of their annointed "professional" status. This is easily as dangerous as the phenomenon you fear, because of the confidence people gain by having their pet biases echoed back to them by someone authoritative, thus granting such popular delusions a power no lay journalist can confer.

Citizen journalists have no innate credibility. Agree or disagree with a blogger, but his opinions have no more inherent authority than those of his readership. A rare extremely high-profile blogger may gain enough reputation to sway the opinions of his loyal readers temporarily, but he is still not imbued with a professional's authority, and that accumulated credit runs out quickly when the blogger goes power-mad and attempts to build a true mob.

You are upset that your motorcycle forum went pear-shaped, and I get that, but what you saw there is a perfect example of why you should relax. Did you get sucked into a torch-wielding mob? It seems not. The forum was not galvanized but instead ruined. Some people may have stuck around because the particular brand of groupthink that emerged there appealed to them. The sane people such as yourself just packed up and left. When this happens, the forum itself gets a reputation for appealing to the lunatic fringe. Savvy people stay away and less-savvy newcomers who come expecting motorcycle-related discussion are quickly driven out by the self-satisfied micromob. Eventually the forum becomes a perfect echo chamber, which is pretty boring even for the lunatics, at which point it dries up and blows away. The lunatics will then go and try to infect some other forum. Some will succeed, and the sane people in those forums will once again leave to found new forums without the nutters.

You are taking the Papist tack in an extended analogy of the Protestant Reformation. Citizen journalists are the Protestants. Here, because there is practically zero cost to establishing a new "church," schisms happen at lightning speed. The result is the blogosphere we see today: a churning quantum foam of communities popping in and out of existence, members slipping among them easily and quietly. The result is that the overall environment itself exerts a surprising normative force. One does not become an unassailable "thought leader" to a very large number of people in this environment. Keeping a large audience depends in no small part upon having at least a modicum of the fairness you assert to be the exclusive province of the professional journalist. Pockets of crazy develop, but are sustainable only to the extent they remain insular and exclusive, which limits their attraction and impact.

Emergence of a laissez-faire environment is always scary to those inculcated with a more rigid, structured system, but at the bottom line if the values the rigid system claims to promote are worth anything at all, then those same values will emerge as success factors in the "free market." The result is always imperfect, but at the same time somehow manages to serve the public interest more effectively than any managed system.

Ephraim, I've blogged my thoughts on your post here:
http://subjectivity.com/blog/2007/04/23/reputation-vs-credentials/

Interesting read thats provoked a broad range of opinions. To me, the media (especially in Australia) is relatively homogenous due to media ownership laws. It is a collection of stories. I must say that it was the writings and mostly the "stories" that "profesionals" (whatever that really means) wrote during the peak of Iraq war fever that turned me off paper and professional print media. This was a time when the bleating sheep and group sheep brain really repulsed me.

I like to think that if you want to approach the truth, you have to read a wide range of material, read between the lines, read or talk to people who don't share your opinion and balance it up for yourself. Theres plenty of proof average non-professional people in groups are more accurate than professionals -see below. I also agree that in certain situations crowds are dangerous - even crowds of professionals.

The book "Wisdom of crowds" changed my mind. below is jagged from http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/
(also look it up on Wikipedia)
In this endlessly fascinating book, New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea that has profound implications: large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant—better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.

This seemingly counterintuitive notion has endless and major ramifications for how businesses operate, how knowledge is advanced, how economies are (or should be) organized and how we live our daily lives. With seemingly boundless erudition and in delightfully clear prose, Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, economic behaviorism, artificial intelligence, military history and political theory to show just how this principle operates in the real world.

Fascism is not the same as "mob mentality"..
Or ignorance.
These terms are not synonomous.
Please understand your what your words actually mean.

Mr. Schwartz: From your examples you seem to think the danger comes from the Right, but the examples of fascism/mob-rule which you use are either from a primitive, superstitious pseudo-Christianity that today most closely resembles the Islamic Jihadists, or from a Socialist & Vegan Animal Rights nut (I'm talking about Hitler, in case you don't know your WWII history). Rightist really aren't Fascists at all, although sometimes Fascists take on the appearance of Rightists as a disguise. We have too much of an independent streak to truly be Fascists.

The real fascists are you "journalists" in the corporate media. I'm not necessarily insulting you in partiular, or every "mainstream" media journalist, but as a whole they've completely sold the American people out. Personally I'm tired and sick of the word "balance" or "fairness" or whatever it's supposed to mean. I'd rather just find out the truth. Balance means of course glossing over the truth, then giving equal time to liars and con artists (such as on global warming, and even then more than equal time).

What's bizarre is that it was when I started looking at more so-called alternative media, blogs, and books (not mentioned on CNN of course) that I realized how much BS and nonsense passes for news these days. It's no surprise you're upset when people are tired of propaganda and infotainment instead of real journalism. The corporate media for the last several years has been wrong on so many things, that are much too important for it to be acceptable. Iraq, refusing to investigate things likes like unnacountable electronic voting machines (which MIT professors said were easy to hack), not reporting the truth on things like the Down street memo, the truth behind the massive corruption going on as well as things every American needs to know like the evidence of global warming. Now it may be too late, and it's the media's fault. Just look at site like media matters and you'll see the daily lies and distortions passed off as news. Not to mention the constant fawning over right-wing leaders and alternately ignoring, or smearing anyone else. Well, many people have finally woken up and are sick of it.

By the way, most blogs are not "fascist." The only ones that actually are authoritarian or fascist in nature are far-right Bush-loving ones,such as so-called warbloggers, and paid propaganda. These are not even conserative , in the true sense of the term. Incidentally these are the only ones who newspapers like the Washington Post pay attention to.

"Those of you accusing the main stream media of conservative bias are either to the left of Mao or not paying much attention. e.g. I defy you to name 5 positive things that the main stream media reported on from Iraq last week. Now, name 5 negative events from Iraq reported."

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the reason people aren't reporting the "good news" is there is no good news to report! I know this isn't the truth you want to hear, which of course is why a lot of people will convince themselves Iraq is really an astounding success and it's only because the media doesn't "support their president" that it looks bad. The US media actually is much "better" than foreign ones because they tend to ignore the worst stuff going on.

There is no liberal media. If you think that, just look at Media Matters, or books like "What Liberal Media" and "The Decline and Fall of Truth fro 9/11 to Katrina." They aren't conservative, in the traditional sense either. However they generally support pro-business, Republican policies and candidates for financial reasons. There are also other factors affecting their reporting, such as these days like too many businesses they only care about ratings and the number of viewers. So they'll run endless celebrity news and support the status quo unless they have a good reason not to, and won't spend the money and effort on real investigative journalism.

In the United States, 90% of the media is owned by 5 companies. Whether you believe the media is biased to the left or the right, I think we can all agree that a larger variety of opinion is better. And since we're obviously not getting it from the mainstream media, we'll get it where we can. Ephraim, I will be willing to consider your idea only after the mainstream media has been broken up.

I wonder how Thomas Payne would have responded to your opinion. I personally would rather have to sift through ideas, than to be dictated to by a relatively few "voice of reason"s.

The average joe/jane may be more thoughtful than you seem to think.

Re: Comment directly above.

Well, the jury is still out on that one.

All I was trying to say was that often times the general public are not experts and frankly do not know what they are talking about. Yes, sometimes they do, but I wouldn't want my neighbor who claims to know everything about medicine operating on me. Sometimes intuition is not enough, in medicine, politics, diplomacy, economics, etc.

As far as journalism goes, yes I agree that many journalists abdicate their responsibilities. All you had to do was watch the Democrats be questioned during the debate this week and you would see it in action.

The candidates rarely actually answered the questions put to them but the moderator, never, not once, called them to task for it.

Ephraim --
Editor-at-Large
InfoWorld

Response:

As far as that jury is concerned, they may still be out...to lunch.

Sorry. :)

Examples of the value of a wide array of inputs from a broad set of viewpoints abounds across the Internet.

For example, a site like http://ask.metafilter.com/ can be an excellent resource to uncover some arcane fact, and is also a splendid example that while, as you intimated, some people do in fact behave irrationally, many people that feel they have something positive to contribute--do.

I enjoyed the writing, and putting pen to paper even in this form still puts a name on a face. that in itself forces the mob to slow...

Professional journalists are under fire from all sides. I for one don't think that is fair. Name calling ("liberal media bias", et al.) does little constructive and largely fails to get at the real problems.

However, anyone who says that there isn't a problem isn't paying attention. News organizations and their parent companies are no longer independent. They are mostly owned by even larger entertainment conglomerates with a mandate to sell, sell, sell. Offending the paying customers just won't do!

Remember how 60 Minutes withheld the big tobacco story about Brown & Williamson? It was suppressed because the corporate parent was up for sale, and didn't want the "turmoil" caused by the truth. Even though 60 Minutes has been routinely (and unsuccessfully) sued by every tinpot dictator, liar and fraud for decades.

Remember how the U.S. went to war in Iraq? Have any of those Weapons of Mass Destruction been found there yet? Didn't think so. How about the mythical link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda? Slavishly reported upon even though there wasn't a shred of truth or evidence to it. Uranium from Africa? Nope. Aluminum tubes? Real, but ordinary industrial product, not for bombs of any kind.

Embedding reporters with the military as the ONLY source of war reporting just goes to show how far our media voices have fallen. Corporate ownership of news departments has been bad for them, and bad for society.

Ephraim, you've come up with examples of how small town busybodies can marginalize their fellow citizens. How about acknowledging that the Internet is a little larger than the nearest small town? And, while imperfect, the Internet always provides the right of reply, to anyone who wants it.

In the final analysis, your comment that it's already too late is correct. This is what we have for public discourse now. We need to make the best of it.

Re: Brian, comment directly above.
Yes, I acknowledge that there's a great deal of bad journalism around. Your examples of 60 Minutes, Iraq, etc., are correct.

I wasn't focused on that and perhaps I should have made my original blog a bit longer and included that.

Dissatisfaction with the media has certainly led to strong feelings about journalists and journalism.

I agree you can always have the right of rebuttal with the Internet. But at the risk of beating a dead horse, I think when done right, journalism requires skills that not everyone has and that when these journalistic skills are used for the benefit of society, well, society does benefit.

Society benefits when journalists and their publications are fearless and print the truth and expose corruption, misdeeds and unfairness.

Of course it doesn't do that all the time.

Tell you what if you don't throw out the baby with the bath water, i.e., think all journalists are worthless, I won't either and I'll reconsider my thoughts about citizen journalists.

"I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the reason people aren't reporting the "good news" is there is no good news to report! I know this isn't the truth you want to hear, which of course is why a lot of people will convince themselves Iraq is really an astounding success and it's only because the media doesn't "support their president" that it looks bad. The US media actually is much "better" than foreign ones because they tend to ignore the worst stuff going on."

So, during the past week, no lives were saved, no terrorist insurgents were killed, no IED's defused before they exploded, no mosques protected from insurgents, no additional water or other infrastructure capacity provided to anyone, or no insurgents from Iran or Syria were intercepted? i.e, zero, zip, zilch, nada single good thing happened in Iraq? Only US troops driving around in HMMWV's until they got blown up or car bombs exploding all over the place. Of course if all you are relying upon is the mainstream media, this would be true.

You really need to expand your insights beyond media matters.org (hint, it isn't exactly an unbiased source of information).

It seems to me that most mainstream journalist do not want to touch most stories that they do not deem politically correct, or stories that are not sensational enough. I think that "citizen" journalists are needed to bring Light to many stories that the regular media will not. And as far as this being compared to Hitler-hogwash. I give the majority of people a little more credit for inteligence. The other aspect is in my opinion that journalists are not what they used to be. Less ethics, less objectivity, more greed.

As I watch the news, blogs, etc it is all about what people say not what they are doing.

While great speeches have launched change, change actually occurs from action. We need to be reporting/responding to what people are doing not what they are saying about something.

Our media compared to other countries is getting worse and worse as it is much cheaper to report on what people are saying than it is to do the hard journalism of reporting on what people are doing.

Joel

I'm afraid Mr. Schwartz has things mostly wrong.

First all, stating that "fascism" will take old implies that one viewpoint always wins out on the Net. Mr. Schwartz's apparent familiarity with web groups should inform him that instead you often have entrenched extremists getting the most visibility (i.e. by flooding the page with their posts).

What less visible members are doing is instructive, however. Two groups (it usually boils down to two to four people on both sides, in my experience) will form the core of the argument, but there will be many people lurking about whose mind remains set and who may reply only to condemn the meaningless tirades and call for a ceasing of further discussion on a polarized topic.

Some professional advocacy groups (perhaps you could call them radicals) have made good use of the Internet to propagate their views, but they do not operate without opposition: the more successful an advocacy group is at disseminating its views, the more likely it is that it will come under fire at some point. Nearly every group out there advocating some form of bias has another group dedicated to opposing their views.

If you want specifics, I will be happy to rattle off a large number of instances I have observed throughout the years.

Now, the final piece of the puzzle comes in via the moderates or centrists: How do "normal people" (if we assume that centrists make up most of the people following a single issue) hold a meaningful debate without allowing the radicals to take hold?

Easy enough, via moderation. I've spent years moderating a number of online discussion groups. I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of misses along with the successes, but a moderating team that is dedicated to allowing a meaningful debate without allowing cliques to issue harmful personal attacks is the main way in which a debate can be brought back on course.

Here's a thought experiment (which models a discussion I saw days ago): Somebody comes online and starts ranting about a perceived conspiracy. Quickly people begin ridiculing this poster. If the poster retaliates by going unhinged and employs personal attacks, the moderator has a wide range of potential actions: They may ban the user, they may quiet the ridiculing groups, or they may join in the fun.

I believe that everybody's opinion has some basis in fact (unless they are actually mentally ill); the challenge is merely helping sort through the detritus to find the worthwhile fraction.

The key strength of Internet discussion groups is that nobody is forced to stay at a specific one. If the community or moderation is not to their liking, they may leave or attempt to go through a process to remedy any deficiencies.

People who are banned from groups are not just radicals heading off to fringe groups; quite often good people are driven off from other groups. And, of course, no group exists forever; in the relatively short history of the Internet groups have fractured and died - the longest-lived and most popular groups generally have competent strategies that allow them to remain alive while remaining relevant to their community (see Digg and their handling of the hex code fiasco).

"Citizen journalism" is just a fancy way of saying "public conversation." Prior to blogs and the like, we had gossip. I'll take citizen journalists, thank you.