<![CDATA[Like everyone else, I want to send my support and good wishes to the people of London. King's Cross and Aldgate East are familiar Tube stations for me. I recall vividly being in London during the last IRA bombing of Canary Wharf in 1995, and remain confident the City will show its resilience, again.
But, let's look at the notion that the "citizen journalism" is "covering” this event. If you check the “bomb” group on Flickr, there are pictures of London, but the majority are photos of television screens and screen captures of Web sites reporting on the attacks this morning. On Technorati, there are many variations on the phrase “London bombing” that overwhelm all other subjects being blogged about today, but the links are primarily to statements like mine, above.
People express their shock, their anger, their sense that vengeance is called for, but they are not “reporting” facts about the events in any sense. They are reflecting and amplifying the facts, adding a human dimension, but I challenge the statement that any of this is journalism.
Rather, people are talking about events, primarily the coverage of the events in London. This dialogue is critically important to knitting together a society, but it is not a substitute for journalism.
Leave it to me to point to the emperor’s lack of clothing, but the vast majority of blogging about London aren’t acts of journalism and when the critics of journalism point to this event later, it should be remembered that the media, especially the always reliable BBC, delivered the raw data about which everyone else commented.
Technorati Tags: blogging, press, London
]]>
4 replies on “I heard the news today, oh boy….”
Reaction to citizen journalism in London
Discussion from around the Web about the London bombings and citizen journalism. Ponderance: The Mediascape The London BombingsJust as the Tsunami disaster last year illustrated the significant impact and utility of citizen journalism, the tragic Londo…
Raw data, original discovery research = journalism.
All other = comment.
Simplistic definition.
You would enjoy the addictive *SmallDeadAnimals*
My site is BendGovernment.blogspot.com or Bendgovt.blog.ca
I be back to prod you with *stuff*, meanwhile, take a look. Say hello – even.
73s TonyGuitar
Tony—I didn’t say that raw data or original research is journalism and all else is comment. But I do mean that reacting to the news rather than explaining it is not journalism…. Commentary, like SDA, is important, let’s just be careful about the terms we use. Accuracy is actually useful.
Mitch. I see and accept your point. Journalism? I wouldn’t have a clue, but do you mean something like this?
While Mr. MacKinnon writes a story that contains some truth, he misleads us by enhancing the shock value when it is not really justified. That unfortunately, is not fair and balanced writing and so is untrue in that it misleads. My inserted comments will moderate the weight of this story back towards a more balanced truth. [TG]
Thought you might like this article from today’s Washington Times Newspaper
By Douglas MacKinnon
December 16, 2005
For a growing number of people in our country, “O, Canada” is now less about a national anthem and more about frustration, confusion, disappointment and anger. As in, “Oh, Canada! Why are you once again stabbing the United States in the back?” A recent public spat between liberal Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and David Wilkins, U.S. ambassador to Canada, is shining a much-needed light on a problem that runs much deeper than mere name calling. It is a problem that if not properly addressed and fixed, could have severe national-security consequences for the United States.
There is no risk to any national security when one politian says something less than flattering about the USA because he’s on the ropes and wants to be re-elected. This is one politian remember. Not the whole of Canadian people.
In what some in Canada are saying is a desperate bid to win reelection, Mr. Martin has decided that slandering the United States will win him the most votes among the millions in his country who have a strong dislike of our nation, George W. Bush, the war in Iraq, sensible immigration policies and the rule of law.
Having grown weary of the prime minister’s insults, as well as the vile and juvenile insults thrown at our country by other liberal Canadian politicians, Mr. Wilkins decided enough was enough.
Mr. MacKinnon is correct in opposing PM Martin’s comments, but there is no reason to add any needless weight to words of a single failing Canadian Political figure. At 27 on a scale of 30, Martin calls the kettle black.
After the prime minister said the United States lacked a “global conscience” for not ratifying the seriously flawed Kyoto accord, Mr. Wilkins decided it was time to speak up. If that had been the first insult, he more than likely would have let it go. Sadly, it was far from the first or the worst.
A top aide to Mr. Martin’s predecessor, Jean Chretien, once called President Bush a “moron.” Another high-ranking Canadian official publicly called Mr. Bush a profane name. And yet another liberal member of parliament stomped on a George W. Bush doll on national television. This was the same liberal who called Americans a profane name.
Mr. McKinnon’ s writing could have been more balanced here if he had mentioned that Canadian politicians of the Chretien and Mulroony school always use crude and colorful language. Chretien may well classify several leaders who do not agree with him as moron on any given day. Mr. Bush may well speak in similar language , but with the wisdom to do so privately.
Mr. MacKinnon misleads again when he fails to provide insight into the nature of the liberal MP who stomped on a small Bush doll. Did MacKinnon mention the stomping was done during a TV comedy skit? Does he mention why Canadians regard the liberal in question with no gravity at all? Does Jay Leno often do similar comedy?
Insulting and verbally attacking the United States has become such a national sport among liberal Canadian politicians that one conservative member of parliament said they displayed “a consistent attitude of anti-Americanism.” As Mr. Wilkins stressed, “It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your number one trading partner. But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn’t have a long-term impact on the relationship.”
There is no consistant sport among liberal politicians of verbally attacking the USA. Simply because a conservative member of parliament said that was so is no reason for Mr. MacKinnon to embrace the idea as fact and so mislead his readers.
The ambassador’s point raises a larger question: Can Canada really be considered our “friend” anymore? As someone whose family comes from Canada, a country I grew up loving as a child, it pains me to ask the question. That said, what other question can be asked when the Canadian government not only willingly allows Islamic terrorists into their country, but does nothing to stop them from entering our nation.
Two cases in point out of many. The first being in December 1999, when al Qaeda operative Ahmed Ressam entered the United States from Canada. By luck, he was arrested with a trunk full of explosives. His mission: to blow up Los Angeles International Airport.
Mr. MacKinnon stirs our emotions here by mentioning his family comes from Canada and states the Canadian Government willingly allows Islamic terrorists into Canada.
Most Americans are too wise too accept that idea without question. Did Mr. Wilkins forget to mention that everyone entering the USA from Canada is carefully checked by competent US border guards? Explosives discovered in Ressam’s trunk were intercepted by skilled American guards doing a professional job and they would be offended by the term *luck*.
The duty of Canadian border guards is to carefully check persons entering Canada, not persons leaving Canada.
Next were two Pakistani men on the “no fly” list, with possible terrorist connections, who were arrested in Seattle. They were caught buying one-way tickets to New York City with cash. How did these potential terrorists get into our country? From Canada. One of the men even had a driver’s license from British Columbia.
For years, our intelligence services have warned and even begged Canadian officials to do something about its dangerous open immigration policies. Immigration policies that continually allow highly suspicious people into Canada with a free shot at the United States.
MacKinnon fails to inform us of pertinent background here. East Indians and Pakistanis started up logging enterprises in Southern British Columbia around 1910.
There are huge communities in Vancouver, Surrey, Mapleridge and other areas and the vast majority are good citizens. Thousands have driver’s licenses.
Having a driver’s license from British Columbia is not a crime and neither is it a sure fire way to identify a *terrorist.
U.S. politicians from both sides of the aisle have joined with U.S. law enforcement personnel to ask Canada to address this growing security threat. In response, Canadian politicians from the left have basically said, “Drop dead.” [surmise?] We may yet. And how tragic it would be if the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans came at the hands of a terrorist that Canada willingly allowed into their country.
Comedian Jon Stewart once joked that “A Canadian woman kept asking me, ‘What do Americans really think about Canada? What do Americans really think about Canada?’ ” And Mr. Stewart answered, “We don’t.” Well, the day has come when we need to not only start thinking about them, but holding some Canadians accountable for their irresponsible actions.
[MacKinnon has an obligation not to generalize here, but to provide actual documented evidence of irresponsible events.]
Our once great friend is turning against us. Common sense and our national security dictate that we can no longer afford to ignore that fact.
[Surmise? – what real evidence?]]
Thousands of us spend winter in Florida , Texas, Arizona and California.
Americans are easy to like! We don‘t live and spend among people we hate.]
Douglas MacKinnon served as press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole. He is also a former White House and Pentagon official and an author.
My only qualification to comment on Mr. MacKinnon’s writing is simply that I live in the area upon which he passes judgment without visiting. I suggest Mr. MacKinnon’s writings may be vastly altered following a pleasant three week visit to Victoria and Vancouver British Columbia. Is this a writing based more upon emotions rather than actual fact? [TG]
Douglas Mackinnon may be permitted to stir up hate in free opinion, but I think a Washington Times editor may not have had time to view this piece.
In other words, hate mongering may be fun, but validate your wilder rants…please [TG]