90% of “citizen journalism” is nothing of the sort. Just like “citizen science” researching vaccines.

Hopefully, as a reader, you can see through the 90% and only really trust the 10% who provide factual reporting.

As with any source, always question what you are being offered: is this video clip full, what preceded it, what followed it? Who else confirms this person said this or experienced that?

▲

RansomStark 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Preach comrade!

Those citizen journalists with their primary sources, disgusting.

Thats nothing but propaganda.

Remember it doesnt matter what the video shows, it only matters who showed it to you.

	▲	Barrin92 9 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Remember it doesnt matter what the video shows, it only matters who showed it to you In an age of mass media (where there's a video for anything) or now one step further synthetic media knowing who makes something is much more important than the content, given that what's being shown can be created on demand. Propaganda in the modern world is taking something that actually happened, and then framing it as an authentic piece of information found "on the street", twisting its context. "what's in the video" is now largely pointless, and anyone who isn't gullible will obviously always focus on where the promoter of any material wants to direct the audiences attention to, or what they want to deflect from.
	▲	p_j_w 9 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Remember it doesnt matter what the video shows, it only matters who showed it to you. Both matter.
	▲	9 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	anigbrowl 9 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
	▲	weberer 8 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Remember it doesnt matter what the video shows, it only matters who showed it to you. This should be Wikipedia's official motto. I really hate how they handle "reliable sources".

▲

nomilk 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 90% of “citizen journalism” is (trash)

You're right. But compared to what?

I guess 99% of mainstream "journalism" is irrelevant and/or inaccurate, hence citizen journalism is a 10x improvement in accuracy and relevancy! Not 10% better, 900% better! This makes a huge difference to our society as a whole and in our daily lives!

But this misses the most important point which is that the user should have the right to choose for themselves what they say and read. Making citizen journalism unduly burdensome deprives everyone of that choice.

▲

logicchains 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Citizen journalism avoids the main weakness of a centralised system: it's incredible suspectible to capture. A prime example of this is the mass opposition around the world to Israel's genocide in Gaza. Israel committed such genocides prior to the event of social media, such as the Nakba, but it was rarely reported on, due to media ownership being concentrated in the hands of a few pro-Zionist individuals.

	▲	hdgvhicv 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		Using “pro-Zionist” when you mean “Jewish” doesn’t mean you aren’t antisemitic