Mayhill Fowler is a citizen journalist. She wrote for the Huffington Post's Off the Bus project in 2008, and stirred up major controversy when she posted an audio recording of President Clinton verbally bashing Vanity Fair writer Todd Purdum, for publishing a long and not so flattering piece about him.
Los Angeles Times staff writer James Rainey's 2008 story: How Mayhill Fowler got the online scoops on Obama and Bill Clinton, talks about how Mayhill "credits her persistence, some luck, and not following old rules."
The question is, does not 'following the old rules' of journalism mean having no moral code of ethics? And should citizen journalists be held to a standard of journalistic ethics and integrity?
Mayhill was criticized for not disclosing herself as a journalist when she asked President Clinton: "Mr. President," Fowler asked, "what do you think about that hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"
Salon.com writer, Alex Koppelman gave his two cents on this situation in the article: Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton sparks controversy" saying, "In the age of the Internet, the ability of so-called "citizen journalists" to report these kinds of guarded moments is a good thing, and that's an argument I tend to sympathize with, but the lines become really murky when that 'citizen journalist' is someone like Fowler, working with an organization like the Huffington Post."
Koppelman believes that by making herself sound like supporter rather than a reporter, Mayhill crossed the line.
In my opinion, if a citizen journalist wants to be taken seriously, they should absolutely follow the journalistic code of ethics. No one should be completely exempt from practicing morals. The truth is whether independent or mainstream, with the internet journalists have the ability to pick and choose which ethical code(s) they want to follow, if any.
A journalists job is to seek the truth and report it. That is exactly what Mayhill did. Disclosure is a murky area because it is very often determined on a case by case situation. Citizen journalists tend to ask the hard questions that mainstream media often ignore. The former President had the choice to respond to Mayhills question and he did so on his own will. Whether or not he was under the impression she was a journalist or supporter should not matter. With today's technology anyone can record anything, they don't have to be a journalist.
In my opinion citizen journalists and mainstream journalists should be held to the same standards, just as I believe politicians and common folk should be held to the same standards. In President Clinton's situation he should just remember, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all. Or if you are going to say something, at least be able to back it up.. because anytime anywhere a citizen, or a journalist may call you out on it.
Los Angeles Times staff writer James Rainey's 2008 story: How Mayhill Fowler got the online scoops on Obama and Bill Clinton, talks about how Mayhill "credits her persistence, some luck, and not following old rules."
The question is, does not 'following the old rules' of journalism mean having no moral code of ethics? And should citizen journalists be held to a standard of journalistic ethics and integrity?
Mayhill was criticized for not disclosing herself as a journalist when she asked President Clinton: "Mr. President," Fowler asked, "what do you think about that hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"
Salon.com writer, Alex Koppelman gave his two cents on this situation in the article: Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton sparks controversy" saying, "In the age of the Internet, the ability of so-called "citizen journalists" to report these kinds of guarded moments is a good thing, and that's an argument I tend to sympathize with, but the lines become really murky when that 'citizen journalist' is someone like Fowler, working with an organization like the Huffington Post."
Koppelman believes that by making herself sound like supporter rather than a reporter, Mayhill crossed the line.
In my opinion, if a citizen journalist wants to be taken seriously, they should absolutely follow the journalistic code of ethics. No one should be completely exempt from practicing morals. The truth is whether independent or mainstream, with the internet journalists have the ability to pick and choose which ethical code(s) they want to follow, if any.
A journalists job is to seek the truth and report it. That is exactly what Mayhill did. Disclosure is a murky area because it is very often determined on a case by case situation. Citizen journalists tend to ask the hard questions that mainstream media often ignore. The former President had the choice to respond to Mayhills question and he did so on his own will. Whether or not he was under the impression she was a journalist or supporter should not matter. With today's technology anyone can record anything, they don't have to be a journalist.
In my opinion citizen journalists and mainstream journalists should be held to the same standards, just as I believe politicians and common folk should be held to the same standards. In President Clinton's situation he should just remember, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all. Or if you are going to say something, at least be able to back it up.. because anytime anywhere a citizen, or a journalist may call you out on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment