I have followed this debate, it is free journalistic content on the Internet and amateur photos in real time are loaded from hot spots around the world outperform traditional journalism. No, say the traditionalists: our investigative journalists go deep and covers many points of view. Wrong, say citizen journalists: our latest information and we do not benefit behind it. We are impartial to satisfy traditionalists. They are paid by advertisers, you need to be politically correct, say the rebels. People risk their lives in the world’s hot spots and many of us have died in the line of duty, say the traditionalists. We are at the forefront, a rebel said, pushing his head on one of the bombed buildings, the latest atrocity on the iPhone shot and download it for viewing pleasure of the world (or horror).
I do not know who is right. Of course, the internet has made 2.0 for a dialogue between authors and readers are available and we are no longer satisfied with simply presenting facts, arguments propaganda and lies. More static and “letters to the editor” – that is to say the old traditionalists who seek to encourage public participation – there is nothing in the online world, the “how” and “Comment” buttons that accompany most of the e-journal piece these days. “Going viral” move faster on the Internet than in traditional media. The fact that most traditionalists E-versions of their discussion document adopted means they do not want to be left behind. To make matters worse for the old guard, wiretapping scandals last traditionalists did not appreciate the readers. traditional content providers are eager to sell advertising – we all know – is mass appeal, where they find their interests and citizen journalists are allowed to cover the niche. Consequently, one might say, as traditional journalism overall, if a developer is dominated by powerful interests?
Not be paid for citizen journalism, while showing the purity of intention may also poorly written pieces, and the contents of the routine with obvious axes. But we have also heard of “right” or “left” in the space of traditional newspapers. On the other hand, are lifers and traditionalists insist that their journalists are immersed in their field and with the greatest precision, structure, accountability and voice that citizen journalists are dispersed in their presentation and s’ bored quickly and move on to other activities once they had their dose to save the world and put a dark side.
I also citizen journalism and how. The fact that I do not bow to edit an editor indifferent, modify or refuse to pay my proposal, because it is not love or care for his sponsors has allowed me to see the world and make observations on characteristics and time paid himself a career elsewhere. I do not want ads on my site or blog for the privilege to be free from any interference. I managed to get the nickname “jaded journalist” or “flight lackeys of the company.”
I do not know how is better to have advantages and disadvantages. I am grateful that the Web 2.0 has many of us worry that our views with the world, without having to make the site traditional journalism close to us. It has also taken into consideration, because the reader a wide range of views and sorting the biggest headache. Wheat from the chaff