by James Zipadelli

Created on: March 21, 2009

The phrase, "Citizen journalism" has had a detrimental effect on the mainstream media. First, it confuses the reader/viewer because they don't often trust the mainstream media in the first place. Second, anyone who has a blog and a camera thinks they can be a journalist. And third, it dilutes the importance of "traditional" journalists like me.

Being a journalist has been a goal of mine since I was very young. Before computers and the Internet, all I needed was a pencil, a paper and my imagination. I would spend hours writing short stories. I started publishing short stories in third grade. I was published in the Anthology of Poetry for Young Americans at 11 and Northeast Magazine at 14.

I became interested in political journalism after the 2000 recount between George W. Bush and Al Gore. I sat transfixed as the decision dragged on for weeks. I said to myself, "Wow. The government representatives control most aspects of our lives, from how much we pay in taxes to Social Security benefits. I want to make sure they are spending our money wisely." Dad and I also spent hours watching 'NBC Nightly News' with Tom Brokaw, 'Inside Politics' with Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw, and 60 Minutes. Those journalists also had an impact on me. One of the great things about Mike Wallace, for example, was his confidence. Whenever he had a big interview, he knew what questions to ask, when to ask them, and his subjects knew it. To this day, I still try and emulate his confidence.

I have a bachelor's degree in journalism and political science from the University of Connecticut and a Master's degree in Print and Multimedia Journalism from Emerson College. I believe in the importance of journalists, but I cringe at the thought of "citizen journalism." Have I spent 50-grand for nothing? Am I even relevant at this point in my career? For God sakes, I'm only 24.

I'm not saying that people cannot be engaged and contribute to the broader discussion, or that what they contribute cannot be an asset to journalists. All I'm saying is that the heavy lifting is still done by journalists. A resident in Storrs sends in a great picture of a burned down home to my NBC affiliate in Hartford, Conn. That's great, but the journalist still has to find out what caused the blaze, how much smoke damage their was, and if there were any injuries or deaths. An ordinary citizen is not going to do that. They have family and work responsibilities to attend to. And that's fine. But don't call them journalists.

Perhaps journalists don't drive and shape coverage as much as we used to because of this interactive nature, but we can still be honest brokers of information. Without journalists, why have the First Amendment? Public agencies are supposed to abide by our Freedom of Information Act, signed in 1966, and our state sunshine laws. Without journalists, public officials have no reason to disclose information that should be made public. The government is spending billions of dollars of our tax money bailing out large institutions, and yet news organizations are shuttering their Washington bureaus. I just don't see Joe the lamp maker with his blog delving into public records and having the same quality of journalism as a "traditional" journalist.

Going forward, citizens have affected mainstream media as a whole in one sense - instantaneous reaction to stories. No longer do we have to wait for letters to the editor. News organizations are 24/7. There's no doubt that my field will go through more changes as technology becomes better. But technology is dispensible; journalists are not.

Learn more about this author, James Zipadelli.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.