That which we call a 'citizen journalist' by any other name would smell as sweet

The debate officially has begun: Shall we continue to use "Citizen journalism" to describe this thing where anyone can publish and where the lines between author and reader blur and where that glorious commingling-of-ideas thing happens?

My typical response to people who challenge the terminology: "I don't care what you call it; I care how you do it." That said, I can't argue with Robert Niles, editor of the Online Journalism Review, who wrote: "Maybe terminology is not important. But if we want our readers to care about their words in their work, I believe we should give careful thought to our words in describing their work."

Niles' comments, which were written in April, were cited Monday by Staci Kramer who posted in response to Steve Outing who also posted Monday. And, thus, I have declared the debate to be officially on. (I can do that even though Gillmor and Jarvis haven't weighed in this week, can't I?)

Outing doesn't take a strong position, but Niles and Kramer both complain that "citizen journalism" implies that professional journalists aren't citizens. I get it. But I'm not as worked up about it, partly because I don't think anyone really would take the position that the pros aren't citizens and partly because I'm worried that a new term could force me to change the title for my blog.

That said, I'm game if there is something better that we can convince the so-called citizen journalists to adopt. Remember, we can't just foist this upon them, we have to let the term evolve, grassroots-style.

"Grassroots journalism." That's Niles' favorite. By process of elimination, he says. A ringing endorsement. It's OK, but the problem is that not all of this new publishing stuff is coming from the grassroots.

"Open media." Dry. Perhaps the most accurate. It's a contender.

"Citizens media." Somewhat obviates that hey-we're-citizens-too complaint from pro journalists.

"Personal media." J.D. Lasica has been using this term. Makes me think of the media content that I personally consume, my music, my news, my RSS feeds, my Netflix subscription, etc.

"Participatory journalism"? "Community journalism"? Read Niles' comments. He buries these two for just the right reasons.

"We-dia." I get it. Sounds like something that I'll need to spray.

Collective media? Collaborative journalism? Journabloggism? Fused media? Media fusion?

This discussion really begs for a poll. Unfortunately, Typepad doesn't seem to offer this option. Hey, can someone else please set up a poll so we can settle this thing? Or do we need a poll first on whether to have a poll?

Comments

[Michael]

Ari,

If the issue is that "citizen journalism" implies that professional journalists aren't citizens, Niles and Kramer may want to reframe the notion; professional journalists are obviously citizens, but they're only citizen journalists when they step away from MSM influence and editorial boards. Frankly, the title that may need a-changin' is "Professional Journalist" to Corporate Journalist. In fact, now that I think of it, professional journalism implies that citizen journalists aren't professionals. How we use our words is important--but so is context.

Hopefully, in the long run, pro journalists can better recognize that free speech for all is a good thing; they should be supporting citizen journalism, grassroots journalism, weblogs, whatever... as free speech. Hey, maybe we can call it free speech journalism?

[Ari]

Almost sounds like we should be using the modifiers "professional," "semi-professional" and "amateur." Almost :)