The nature of the "free" that's ingrained itself in today's world of media consumption has managed to extend itself to journalism through something called citizen journalism. This is when a Website posts "stories" written by, as the name implies, pretty much anyone. It might be a 45-year-old stay-at-home mom looking for something to fill her days; a 19-year-old bored at his new office job, or simply an enthusiast that wants to feel involved in a particular topic, or just the goings on in his area. The idea is that it's the public that's providing the information for consumption, for the most part for free, and not professionals.

Freelance journalist (not the citizen kind) Claude Adams decided to challenge this notion and try his hand at citizen journalism with a U.S.-based Website that was running a special "Pro" citizen journalist section for a small fee to writers. (Read the hilarious account of his experience here). Adams realized that in the world of citizen journalism, it's quantity over quality. I don't mean that the site wanted him to write more, but that they simply wanted him to write content that would attract the greatest number of eyeballs.

It can be argued that this concept isn't new, nor restricted to journalism of the citizen kind. Readership is everything, and one can only assume that good quality content is measured, in at least some fashion, by the number of eyeballs that view it. Yet Adams explains how the editor rejected a story from him that she admitted she would have commissioned right away had she been working for a paper like the New York Times. Apparently, however, the article just wouldn't have gained enough traction (i.e. eyeballs) as a citizen journalist piece.

Some social media and new-age thinkers argue that citizen journalism, however, is the future of journalism. The idea can be compared to the belief that reality programming is the future of TV, where viewers, not experts, get the deciding vote as to which young hopeful music artist gets a recording contract, or which game player is deserving of $1 million bucks. In other words, we don't want the high-budget writers or experienced actors. We want the guys-off-the-street, the guerilla filming tactics, and the sharp, acid tongues.

In some ways, "real" media should feel threatened. The average Joe who happened to be at the right place at the right time, or was able to capture an image of an accident or a bar fight with his cell phone camera, has always been there to offer tips to the "real" media. So logically, why can't that same passer-by spew his own 200 word rant about what happened and post the "news" himself?

But there are a few issues with citizen journalism, quality concerns a la Adams' experience aside. For one, you don't get paid for it. While some sites (like the one Adams wrote for) might offer a nominal fee based on how many "hits" or views your item gets, or how many posts you contribute on a monthly basis, it's certainly not enough to make a living, nor a career out of it. Second, in many ways, the citizen journalists rely on real journalists to pen their prose. They comment on a news story that was reported on in a reputable paper; or regurgitate information (or even use a long, run-on quote) from another source, adding a few lines of their own spin. Without the real source of information; the one that requires the research, follow up, and fact-checking, the citizen would not be able to report his musings. Third, if the popular notion holds true, people value the opinion of their peers just as much as they do the opinion of experts. But all credibility goes out the window when accountability doesn't exist. It's easy enough, after all, to say what you want, claim what you want, and fail to check the facts when you're accountable to no one, and writing under an anonymous pseudonym like RealBlogger123. If you can't be sure that the person your daughter is talking to in the online chat room is a 13-year-old boy like he claims to be, how can you be sure that the citizen journalist reporting on something is actually reporting the truth?

Eyeballs are great. Catchy headlines are great. But is the future built upon quick rants from every Tom, Dick, and Harry that feels like he wants to contribute to the World Wide Web? Or is it built on articles that are simply too good to get more hits then the story about the local dog chasing his tail?

Article Tags:  citizen, journalism, adams, media, journalist, eyeballs, quality, future, right, story, information, something, world, simply, paper, reporting, opinion, happened, source, contribute, offer, journalists, experts, experience, wants, posts, website, consump