I offer a few tidbits about myself simply to give my answer some context. My background and formal training has been in the world of technology. But I have always loved to write. The hobby and the profession came together in the late 1970s as I was working for a radio station. I was hired for my formal training in radio communications, and “accidentally” became the news director when the guy who held that job left.
The concept of news back then was reporting facts. Who said what. The biggest tool I had was the telephone, calling to verify the facts. One of the biggest “scoops” I had was when I was lucky enough to call the coroners office, and the man himself (the coroner) answered the phone and I was able to get the specifics on a pretty bad tractor trailer accident. So cool, my story made the state news summary on the AP (Associated Press) wire service. That's when the news came over the teletype on rolls of paper.
I wasn't trained, I learned from trial and error, and very occasional editor who would take the time to give me tips on how to write better. I learned two things from that experience. Sensational stories is what they want, but you better have your facts in order.
My love for writing stayed with me, and in the years that followed I connected with regional business publications writing about technology. Topics I thought were cool had to get approved by an editor. I needed to tie in my stories with local businesses, getting validation from people in the community.
Perhaps in the context of the other writers here, I'm not qualified to call myself a traditional journalist, because my training was not a class room where I studied journalism. I learned from experience, with the help of many editors along the way. I learned the role of the editor, and looked forward to the critiques that helped me to focus my ideas.
This question, and your answer, stirred up many thoughts. I should break down all the things going on in my mind, perhaps into my own answer, as well as some other questions. But I wanted to react to your answer, while some thoughts were still fresh in my mind. I remember from several years ago, a round table discussion by some scifi writers. One of the writers was complaining about how the internet was ruining the world of news and information. One of the other panelists slammed him back with a comment something to the effect of, that's what many writers said when the printing press was invented. There goes the neighborhood.
More news is a good thing. More misinformation is a bad thing. I see citizen journalists in the context of the army of bloggers that have taken over as the main source of information for many people. The biggest issue with that, as you point out, is no oversight of what they post, and no editorial approval. Fake news is not a new concept. But thanks to the army of bloggers who quote rumors as facts, the myths and misinformation spread like a wild fire. I could go on a rant from there, but I will stop at that. So much more on my mind.
But the Examiner .com has no use for professional journalists. It is instead an experiment in pure citizen journalism.
Each site offers up hyper-local news written by contributors called “examiners.”
The Guru 42 Universe is not run by a university professor with a team of editors and advisers working to developing a website. Tom Peracchio is simply someone who loves technology and history and is amazed by how little people know about the great minds in the world of technology.
Support Guru 42 efforts by your small donation at Buy me a coffee