Journalism as a Public Forum

I found this topic to be rather interesting. Mainly because the world is becoming more tech-savvy, and I am very much involved in online journalism and viewing the opinions of others, whether it be a stay-at-home mom or someone who has a degree in journalism. 

Is the increasing amount of people being allowed to write online appropriate? Should there be more moderation?

Blogs:

I'm all for blogs. There are tons of things I have found out because someone had written a blog about a certain topic, and I stumbled across it.  However, anyone can get a blog, and write whatever they want. There are "codes of ethics" for blogs, but it is impossible to make sure every single blog is factual and following the rules.

Comment Boards on websites:

I am definitely a frequenter on the comment sections of news sites. While many of the comments people make are unintelligent and are obviously just written to cause problems, there are often points brought up that do add to the article. I think that allowing reader comments makes it so certain elements are added to a story that may not have been brought to light, had only the original author of the story been involved.

Wikipedia:

I personally love wikipedia. It drives me crazy when teachers will not allow it as a source because there is a lot of relevant and accurate on the pages there. It is true that anyone is allowed to get on and edit the information. One particular account that I can remember is when I was looking up information on Murray, Utah. Someone had gone in and written that the city had been renamed "David Archuleta-City". Obviously, this was not true. I checked back awhile later, and it had been taken off, but this demonstrates the downfall of some public forums. However, as was said in the presentation, the philosophy of wikipedia is that people will catch these factual errors and then correct them. But can someone always count on this -- there is always the possibility that something will fall under the radar and inaccurate information will be presented as fact.

The issue with public forums is just that -- they are completely open to the public. Because there is no real way to moderate things beyond message boards and chat rooms, pretty much anyone can write whatever they want. I personally believe that people will say things online that they would never say in person. I follow many different twitter feeds of people I know, and I am shocked by some of the things posted. There is one person I know who is extremely friendly and nice in person, but everything they say online is so negative and critical. I think that having journalism as a public forum has good sides and bad sides, as do most things in the world. There should be public forums available, but moderation is essential -- not so much to weed out things a particular company or story doesn't want said, but to get rid of things that aren't true. Public forums allow the minority to have a voice. 

Many are worried that public forums are crowding out real journalism. This may be true, but it also may be just being blown out of proportion. I think that there will always be people who will only rely on the news given by a credible channel or website. Allowing public forums makes it so discussion happens and the voices of the unheard can be heard. 

Interesting links pertaining to the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt-OLejGnXw

http://www.savethenews.org/blog/09/09/15/public-forum-journalism-denver

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:LiJcJ035CaEJ:jmsc.hku.hk/blogs/0101fall09/files/2009/09/0902141553.pdf+journalism+public+forum&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg5K5l7YzGv4YSYT1-I3kLyzf2zhbee6RjAOMbHIatOM54o1ZYD53feWThzuJd7szNE9FlV7KqekOJLCVKANJx12eWY2HMZbl5j5z-HNjH28Gl7TsQQBtKOUOeUmRwjGUmo-uaj&sig=AHIEtbRga1ojU4lGNd50IRWTDKQBuRPWNQ