Citizen Journalism

I think you've got it backwards.  Can the news media produce quality journalism with their emphasis on ratings rather than reporting?  

A good example would be the days leading up to the health care vote.  A few hundred protesters roamed the halls of congress angrily confronting legislators.  Newsworthy?  Yes.  But all Tea Baggers all the time?  I think not.  At the same time these few hundred people were protesting the upcoming healthcare vote, many tens of thousands (some estimates say 100,000 and the organizers say 200,000) were on the Mall in DC rallying for immigration reform.  One "news" network managed to miss this demonstration altogether.  Others gave the demonstration quick mention.  "News"papers gave the tea baggers wall to wall coverage on the front pages. We read nothing about the immigration reform demonstration here in Arizona, a hotbed for the immigration debate.

I am missing the days when journalists went out to get the story, and followed it to where it led (think Watergate). Today the "news" media cover the stories that give them ratings successes.  In efforts to be "fair," they spit back the talking points of each side.  But, when does it come time for a little subjective journalism?  If one party says the sky is green and another says it's blue, do they really have to report both sides of the argument, giving equal time to both sides of the "controversy?"

Citizen journalism is necessary as long as the news media are out for ratings and ignoring important stories.  Yes, ethics and bias are there in a big way, but they're present in today's ratings-driven media as well, and perhaps exacerbate the problems since most people are informed of the days events by typical media.

You've got to wonder what's happening when The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the only program calling out the crackpots.