Citizen-journalism's rulebook

US elections 2008: Jay Rosen's defence of Mayhill Fowler for recording Obama's remarks about the working class leaves ethical questions unanswered

One thing I try to remember to be suspicious of as I go through life is the alleged conversation-clinching one-liner. You know; the mot juste that is meant to end all debate on the topic at hand and to send those arguing the "wrong" side of the question slinking off to the corner. In my experience, such clinchers are almost invariably devoid of any moral or ethical component. They are "hard-nosed assessments" of "the way things are", and we just have to "deal with it".

The clincher that concerns us today is the one about how the blogosphere has taken journalism into uncharted waters, and it usually goes something like: "The rules have changed, man. Deal with it."

Superficially, this is inarguable, and I want to be clear that I am, generally speaking, a big supporter of the blogosphere's corrective power. I don't think that most mainstream reporters have secret agendas. But I do think that they have to work so fast and under such deadline pressure (which has only intensified in the cyber age) that they often make errors of fact or judgment, some of them whoppers. And for news consumers to have another set of people, even if they are "uncredentialed", looking over their shoulders has been, by and large, a salutary thing.

But sometimes it's fair to ask: The rules have changed to what? On the Huffington Post yesterday, Jay Rosen took a stab at answering this question in light of the controversy over Barack Obama's recent remarks about working-class voters. His effort makes it clear to me that there are some awfully important questions that still await answers.

Background: Rosen, with Arianna Huffington, came up with the "Off the Bus" project, which employs "citizen journalists" to cover the campaign. One of those c-js is Mayhill Fowler, who tape-recorded Obama's remarks at the kind of event that used to be called a private fundraiser. A self-described Obama supporter who has donated $2,000 to his campaign, according to the Federal Election Commission's records, she hemmed and hawed for a few days about whether to write up Obama's remarks, then finally decided to do so, knowing that they would likely explode in the face of her preferred candidate (and Rosen's preferred candidate, as he acknowledges, and from all appearances, Arianna's preferred candidate as well; and, it's no secret to my readers, mine too).

Rosen's essay yesterday is in three parts. Part one grouses about how Fowler wasn't credited by some mainstream media outlets for her scoop. Part two explains the concept of citizen-journalism and discusses the problems he foresaw when he started the project. Part three discusses the case at hand.

I have various quibbles, but let's cut right to the chase - namely, whether Fowler was playing by the rules in reporting Obama's remarks. On this crucial point, Rosen contradicts himself. First, he writes that "the invitation [Fowler] had to the Pacific Heights fundraiser on April 6 didn't say, 'Mayhill Fowler, citizen journalist' on it. It didn't say, 'you can't blog about this' either. There were no conditions attached. She agreed to none. Uncharted territory."

But a few paragraphs later he quotes Fowler acknowledging that her (at least) implicit understanding with the campaign was just the opposite. Fowler, to Rosen: "I know, from a phone conversation with the person who issued me an invitation (after my first post about Obama's comments on choosing a running mate went up on Monday), that the assumption was, even though the campaign knew I was a 'citizen journalist,' I would always put the campaign before the reporting."

Well, which is it? Was she free to write whatever she heard, or was she there with the understanding that she would put the interests of the Obama campaign before the reporting? And how did she "know" what the "assumption" was? Was it expressly articulated? Did she expressly agree?

This is where citizen-journalism gets very fuzzy. Traditional journalists learn or hear things all the time that, under the rules of journalism, they can't use, because they heard or learned them in an off-the-record context. A journalist invited into a closed fundraiser - this doesn't happen often, but does from time to time - will be told by aides very clearly that everything is off the record and will presumably abide by that. So if a New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle or Guardian journalist had been inside that event under the terms I describe, the remark in all likelihood would never have become public.

Ah, but Fowler is a citizen! And as a citizen, she did something that no reporting journalist would do - she donated money to Obama's campaign. These donations are what got her in the door. Now isn't that a convenient definition of citizen-journalist? Put on a citizen hat, and donate enough money to be sure that you get invited into private affairs as a citizen - something no journalist I know would do. Then, once inside the door, put on the journalist hat and report private remarks! And finally, to absolve yourself of the standard journalistic responsibility of going to aides and getting on-the-record quotes about the comment, which most any working journalist would do, toss the journalist hat back in the closet and become a citizen again! Nice work if you can get it.

Obama said what he said, and I guess it's true that there are no private moments anymore. He and his campaign haven't complained about what Fowler did, and they're right not to, because they'd just look like whiners. And I think that in general the Off the Bus project has worked pretty well from what I've read of it.

But if the old rules are fading away, there have to be a few new ones to take their place. There can't just be anarchy. Rosen writes: "But we also felt that participants in politics had a right to report on what they saw and heard themselves, not as journalists claiming no attachments but as citizens with attachments who were relinquishing none of their rights."

Really Jay? Come on. Journalists relinquish rights frequently in the course of doing their work responsibly, as you well know. Citizens have the right of free speech, meaning that Joe Schmoe can stand in the courthouse square screaming "Barack Obama loves Hitler!" all day long, and the ACLU, and I, will defend his right to do so. But a journalist who wants to commit that sentence to print cannot do so without adducing some proof. Having a platform means that you have some responsibilities, and responsibilities are the opposite of rights.

So there are still some things to sort out about all this. I'd suggest, for starters, that any citizen-journalist who has made political donations be forced to list them at the bottom of every post (interestingly, Fowler also donated $250 to Fred Thompson, according to the FEC page linked to above). I'd also say that citizen-journalists ought to have the responsibility, when the circumstances merit it, of seeking follow-up comment from the other side (or, in the case above, giving Obama aides the standard chance to clarify). That's the tough part of journalism. Any idiot can run a tape recorder.

So fine - let's change the rules. But let's at least have some.

For more blogs on the US elections, click here.