In "The 11 Layers of Citizen Journalism" Steve Outing ponders whether citizen journalism is something which should be used as a popular form of mass communication. If citizen journalism is something that newspapers and media could benefit from then it is questioned which of the 11 layers is the best -- or close to -- the best one.
Allowing public comment on stories, which comes as the first layer seems like a step in the right direction. Allowing comments on stories can not only spark discussion among readers -- and possibly the writer -- but may also help one reader point something out to another through a comment.
The MSU Reporter site allows for comments from readers and many times people take the time to write their feelings toward stories. Though, in other cases readers can take advantage and write unnecessary or ridiculous things.
Skipping to the end of the list we get to the wiki journalist and as Outing puts it, "where the readers are the editors." Like the popular wikipedia, an online wiki news site would not be trustworthy by any means. With the chance that something is always changing there is no way to guarantee that anything you read on the site is true.
As I see it, there is more than one problem with citizen journalists. Yes, they can offer a lot of stories and information that a "real" journalist wasn't able to capture but it may come with a cost. Any person off the street with a notebook and a pen can jot down anything they see or hear, but in their final product they might throw in their opinion or biased views on the subject. Once something of this nature happens it raises the question again about the credibility of the "journalist."
I have to believe there is a reason we journalist majors spend so much time and money in college busting our butt to do study and learn what we do. If any schmuck can can do it then I wouldn't be here wasting my time and energy.
