The concept is noble and egalitarian -- Citizen Journalists. Anyone and everyone reporting news and feeding into some vast system that collects and disseminates it for all to see.


We already have that in the web and, in particular, the blogosphere. Those of us who blog are Citizen Journalists.
A few months ago a website called NowPublic announced it intends to become the world's largest news agency. The Vancouver-based company, which is already listed by Time Magazine as one of the top 50 websites of 2007, got more than $10 million in financing to help fuel its growth.
NowPublic's plan is to let anyone with a digital camera or camera/cellphone upload images and "news snippets" for dissemination on the internet. Some of the money from the financing will be to "reward" people who upload stories or images NowPublic is talking about building partnerships with newspapers, magazines, TV networks and wire services, which will have access to NowPublic material.
NowPublic says it has some 120,000 "contributing reporters" in more than 140 countries. Co-founder Len Brody is quoted as saying, back in July, "I promise you, in 18 months we will be, by reach, the largest news agency in the world."
Impressive. Or is it, perhaps, more scary than impressive?
Citizen journalism is a great idea and it's one that is sure to spread as media, starved for information, will rely on non-professionals who feed pix and information. Some newspapers are already relying on a network of citizen journalists for local news where staff reporters just can't cover everything. But most of these citizen journalists have established some element of credibility with staff reporters and editors so the reliability of information can be trusted.
But imagine a network of 120,000 people all over the world, sending in pix, video and news they've stumbled upon. Does NowPublic, or anyone for that matter, have the staff to monitor and vette the information? Are there enough editors to examine news, look for the holes and contradiction, search carefully for hidden agendas before putting it onto the feed that will then go round the world and become news?
I doubt it very much.
Without proper editing, we can become buried by erroneous or intentionally wrong information. Once it seeps into the mainstream news channels, misinformation can take on a life of its own. Untold damage can be done, hurting individuals, reputations, companies, governments.
Even with the checks of proper editing in real news organizations, we've seen examples of fraud. We've seen doctored photos of bombings in the middle east, perpetrated on Reuters. The Boston Globe, Washington Post and even The New York Times have had star reporters invent or exaggerate information and quotes for the sake of adding emphasis or excitement to stories.
If it can happen to such top professional reporting organizations, just imagine what can hapen when "anyone and everyone" can file a story or submit a photo. It scares me to think what some people might do for money, a cause or just their 15 minutes of fame.
Citizen journalism is a grand idea, but let's take it slowly and carefully. There's too much at stake to be hasty and sloppy.