Dan Gillmor on His Move to "Citizen Journalism"

tct25 writes "Tech journalist Dan Gillmor gives OhmyNews International his first interview since announcing that he will leave the San Jose Mercury News next month in order to start a citizen-journalism venture. Many insiders are scratching their heads. Why is the much respected tech writer leaving what he described as 'greatest gig in the world' for the perilous journey of developing an entrepreneurial idea in citizen-journalism? He spoke to OhmyNews at Harvard Law School in the middle of the final day of the College's Berkman Center-sponsored 2004 Internet and Society Conference last Saturday."

Summary from the article for those who don't RTFA

[Icarus1919]

He's angry at the media for the way they handle news, but he has no idea really where he's going with this whole citizen journalism thing. Then ohmynews proceeds to preen itself for half a page. Afterwards, they talk about blogging, it's relationship to the mainstream media, and how that can influence citizen journalism. Dan Gillmore goes on the record as being skeptical of wikinews.

Re:I know why he would leave

[garrett714]

The liberal elites? I'm sorry buddy but the majority of elitist mentality is republican. Sure, there are your NRA card toting blue-collar farming types that support Dubya 100%, but they probably didn't receieve the best of education. From what I've experienced with republicans, you are either very stupid and support the party, or very intelligent and support the party due to financial gains (greed.) As for liberal, look up the definition. It simply means "thinking for yourself." The problem is that your "alternative outlets" have convinced you that all liberals are either anti-God, democratic, or homosexual. I'm sorry, but once again look up the definition of liberal. Not everyone fits the freaky picture of a liberal that has been taught to you by your radio mind programming.

Re:Or in other words,

[__aanqgi3349]

Funny, but false.

Re:I know why he would leave

[Per Bothner]

As for liberal, look up the definition. It simply means "thinking for yourself."

I consider myself a liberal, but this is nonsense. The root word of liberal is "liberty" or "freedom" - it has nothing to do with "thinking for oneself".

I wish moderators would stop equating "I agree with this" with "Informative", because this clearly isn't.

Re: Talk Radio not politically correct?

[Tony]

However, with a Repulican as president, talk radio has become nothing more than a mouth piece for the white house, much in the same way the media was for Clinton when he was in office.

Uhm, were you awake during the Clinton years? The news did a lot of blasting Clinton, from Whitewater to that stained dress girl. Name one incident on which Bush has been taken to task, from leading our country to war on a country that was no threat to the US whatsoever, based on forged documents; to barely funding the 9/11 investigation (the shuttle accident was funded by an order of magnitude more); to the retconning of the reason we went to war in Iraq in the first place (I heard him say that terrorists brought the war to Iraq, which is true only if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz are terrorists).

The current crop of news softballs the whole Bush presidency, unlike the way they handled Clinton.

Re:I know why he would leave

[taaloos]

Sure, there are your NRA card toting blue-collar farming types that support Dubya 100%, but they probably didn't receieve the best of education.

This is what passes for Informative around here? receieve? With the standard that low, let's see how I can do.

To recap, the standard to be a republican:

• An NRA member
• Blue-collar
• Work on a farm
• Support Dubya 100%
• Uneducated
• Mind controlled by radio

Brilliant. So, that would make the liberal standard, what?

• A NAMBLA member
• A Hippie
• Live in Manhattan
• Looking for ways to make Clinton President again
• Over-educated (hmm.. maybe it's Re-educated)
• Mind controlled by television

Not everyone fits your neat packaging of a republican, either. Look that up and you'll find the broader definition: an advocate of a republic (usually in opposition to a monarchy) [princeton.edu]. Or, in my case, opposition to a nanny state.