Steve Jobs is not dying: Why citizen journalism doesn’t work

Citizens and journalism

I think "citizen journalism" is a misnomer. It's really amateur journalism, as in "a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reason," as an online dictionary describes it. One can be a professional journalist, someone who's studied the craft, learned and practices its ethics, is skilled at journalism work. Or one can write their opinions and do creative writing to please themselves. Like so much in our lives these days, standards of quality and ethics, absolutes on truth and facts, have given way to entertainment, self satisfaction, instant communication. Too bad. Anyway, I think John's article is right on the money.

Nice hyperlinks

I liked your hyperlinks, though. :D

Ummm....

For an article about journalism, I didn't see any data / statistics / quotes or other bits of information to support your argument. Now, aside from the sweeping generalization here and the funny story there, not too much to be said other than a mere opinion. Sigh.

You have to understand the market

Here is how the process works. Say you own a lot of Apple stock. Apple is performing well lately, so holding it presents a fair upside, but there is always the chance that it will go down again. You see an article stating that Steve Jobs had a heart attack, and know that, were it true, it will have an adverse effect on the stock price and therefore the value of your holdings, potentially wiping out any gains you have had on the stock. You also know that by the time you fact check it yourself, if it is true, it will be widely known in the market and the market will have incorporated the information by bidding down the stock. Thus your decision to act on the information and sell or discount its credibility and hold has only a short window of opportunity. Choose wrong and you either lose a lot (if it is true) or gain a tiny bit (if it's not). Believe it or not, the rational decision is to sell - it's self preservation more than greed. If it turns out to be false, you can probably buy back in at the same price losing nothing. If it is true you have avoided a big loss.

That said, the person who reported this without tangible evidence is essentially shouting 'Fire' in a crowded room, or perhaps has shorted the stock and reaped a windfall when his blog found traction. Either way, I believe such irresponsible blogging should be prosecutable.

Not seeing any difference...

Not seeing any difference... Rename it to why "All journalism doesn't work" and you might have something. As long as people are dumb enough to believe everything they read on the intar-webz, it just doesn't matter.

You have the wrong guy

Okay, if the premise of Mr. Brandon’s posting is that Apple shares took a nosedive because of an online rumor, to me, that appears a bit disingenuous by Brandon and Computerworld. Apple shares took a hit not due to citizen journalism, but due to the fear mongering inherent in the securities world. Even Brandon seems perplexed that someone would sell their Apple shares or provide analysis to dump Apple shares based on an iReports posting.

At the heart of this, the root cause, is ego and greed found in the securities marketplace. As Brandon confesses in his own posting, iReports is not considered a credible source of information. A prudent investment analyst or Apple share holder should, as Brandon suggests, fact check their intelligence before acting. But, I speculate that the fear of not moving quickly enough in the securities markets, should the Jobs story be true, caused the turmoil. That fear is greed based. If an analyst or advisor is making moves based on iReports, they should lose their job.

Now, to address citizen journalism. Brandon wrote, “I see citizen journalism as part of the process in investigating a story, but not a replacement for real journalism.” If that’s his position, it seems contrary to the headline of the story. If citizen journalism is part of the process, then how can it be that “citizen journalism doesn’t work”?

Computerworld is not the first to publish this story and the comments that follow are similar to other media outlets’ feedback. Some readers see the articles as a veiled retaliation by “real” journalist against the idea of citizen journalism. I’m not fully convinced of that fact, but I understand sentiment.

My ultimate point is that Brandon, et. al., should not blend a story that should have been about the pathological culture on Wall St. with the concept of citizen journalism. The story did not cause the stock dive, the analysts’ poor judgment did. The age of social media is upon us, even if trained and experienced journalists lament the fact.

Information is power. And that power is diffused more broadly in 2008 than it was even two years ago because information, whether accurate or not, is being pushed from more distribution points than ever before. No longer are traditional journalistic sources the font of information. This blog is a case in point. Those who can’t deal with the proliferation of information distribution will pass away. The innovative journalistic sources will embrace social media, and enhance their offering of services and products to the consuming public. As is the usual case, the cream will rise to the top. Until then, caveat emptor!