Netizen and Professional Journalism
by Daniela Scott

Ronda Hauben's writing in "The Crisis in the US Media and the 2004 Election" presents a truly interesting point of view. Ronda is saying contemporary journalism is corrupted and less socially effective than years ago and she is saying that so called direct democracy sooner or later will take it's place in our social life.

I would disagree with only one point: that the ordinary citizen can replace professionals easily and that the netizen should have now a shorter/easier road to participation in our political and social life.

Theoretically a professional journalist is supposed be a person whose writing is moral and socially/politically focused. Few American journalists are people like that. The rest of them are spoiled by everyday life, corruption etc.

However even let's say a spoiled writer should be a writer. Whether he/she wants or not, he/she must represent a certain standard in writing techniques which makes his/her text "easy to swallow" by the public.

As I observe in the local versions of the Internet (Polish, Russian, Bulgarian and also some lists in English) even people who have something smart and moral to say can't express themselves in the shortest possible way, in the certain manner which makes their ideas popular. As I observe, even smart people have the tendency to make their material too long, not going to the point as quickly and clearly as possible. Long material without it's necessary publicistic "temperature", even if it's author is right, doesn't attract anybody. By temperature plus analytical style I understand a kind of "marriage" between generous thoughts and necessary techniques of writing. There is no question that some non-professional people on the Internet are intelligent and talented in their writing. There is no question that such people should be really welcomed to the world of journalism, but they are a minority.

I agree that some really talented writers should even be paid by certain media. A few, not all of them. When I started on the Internet in 1988 the media looked more promising. Now, after so many years, the Internet looks to me still not strong enough to compete with professional journalism. In my opinion both journalism and the network groups should coexist but exist separately. As much as they can, they should support each other in certain sensitive points and issues. So far the full support and cooperation is almost impossible for a couple of reasons. One of them is that contemporary journalism in many countries not only in the US (as much as every single profession) can not be free of all possible influences: corporate money, corporate culture, corruption etc. Let's do not forget that the journalism is a guild profession which means a lots of money.

A really influential direct democracy supported by a good people involved in their country's affairs = netizens, is almost impossible now. Maybe it will become a reality some time in the future. When? Only when the transparency of political/economic life will be strongly forced by some strong (still unknown today) revolutionary factors. I would compare the role of those factors to DNA testing in forensic science :) today.

2/2/05