“Wreck the paper;
close the school …”

You give CanWest and all its properties the “non-exclusive and royalty-free right and license, (but not the obligation), in perpetuity, throughout the world, in any and all media now known or hereafter devised, to communicate to the public by way of unlimited public broadcast use of your Content or any part thereof”

You hereby expressly waive, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any so-called “moral rights” which may now or may hereafter be recognized by legislative enactment or otherwise at law or in equity with respect to the Content.

“…shall have the right to use your Content in any manner in its sole discretion within the terms of this license, including, but not limited to the right to edit your Content to accommodate broadcast, broadcast distribution and publishing requirements and/or policies; and to add to, delete from, edit, alter and otherwise combine the Content with other content in any manner and in any media whatsoever.”

In other words, submitting anything by this form gives them all rights to it, including the right to strip your name from it and sell it to other companies without offering you a dime.

All this for the possibility that what you upload might be used on their crappy website?

What fucked-up pot are they smoking that makes them think people are going to flock to this?

Perhaps the questions we should be asking are: where do stories fall apart during news production? (e.g., writing, fact-checking, editing) How does this differ from in the past, when free [online] content wasn’t available? How have audience expectations changed, regarding timeliness, accuracy, and originality, and what are the best methods of meeting these?

I’ve formed my own opinions on the matter, and automatically rubber-stamping bloated newsrooms isn’t the answer. heri’s right; as you know, some journalists are unable to pick up the goddamn phone and call a source, let alone keep informed about current affairs, read widely, or, hell, even spell someone’s name correctly. It’s not even because they’re lazy — it’s because editors, publishers, and even readers let them away with it for years.

Are you surprised that readers now look elsewhere for media that suits their inclinations? I’m not. Why should I pay someone to copy-paste a CP story (errors intact or inserted as bonuses) into a newspaper when I can skim it online, obtain the primary documents myself, even call up the parties involved (who are probably delighted to offer clarification, particularly if the first carbon-copy interview was bungled), and draw my own conclusions? Egotistically, I’m positive that readers don’t need someone to digest baby formula for them, thanks. Reporters who shy away from obvious uninformed generalizations and present the facts wall, or import novel insight into the issue from their own experiences or research, win my readership. Frankly, most journalists just aren’t up to snuff.

I hope that we find a way for the two to co-exist. Mainstream, established journalism has one thing that most citizen journalists and blogs don’t have; authority. There are rules, editors, codes of conduct, and other checks and balances in place in order to create and preserve that authority. That authority, however, can be called into question when the outlet’s business interests become too obvious.

Blogs and citizen journalists don’t really have that authority, but they make up for it by presenting freshness and immediacy, and in some cases a sense of “authenticity” that you don’t usually find in mainstream journalism.

Both are necessary. The trick is finding a way for them to co-exist.

however, we are talking here about news that are easy to pick up.

bloggers don’t do investigative journalism, they don’t travel to other countries/cities, they won’t seek interviews or go to press conferences. so for those kind of news, journalists are here to stay.