Oh boy, we have another journalist decrying the problems of "citizen journalists":

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

That's a great analogy there, Dan - are you saying that journalists need the same level of technical training as surgeons before they can write? Let me ponder that a moment: were the NBC folks who planted incendiary devices on a truck professionals? How about Stephen Glass, or Jayson Blair? This isn't to say that all journalists fall into the "ready to commit fraud at any point" bucket, btw - it's merely to point out that writing isn't like surgey, and ethics aren't something it takes years to learn - with the possible exception of David Hazinski, who definitely seems slow on the uptake.

Here's the real problem: journalists pretend to be objective experts, but they are neither of those two things. Pick up a newspaper, and read an article on some subject you are fairly expert in. You'll probably spot problems in seconds. Which raises the obvious question: how much of the rest of the reporting can you trust? Hazinski needs to take the beam out of his own eye before he starts addressing other problems.

Technorati Tags: stupidity