Journalism, as we currently think of it, is a relatively recent enterprise (i.e. "people …regularly writ[ing] about and publish[ing] true stories about current events'). Scott Gant suggests "journalism is a tool for informing one another about the world's affairs, and helping make sense of it all. Journalists are not a priestly class. They are citizens, just like the rest of us. …[T]echnological developments, with the Web at its foundation are…democratizing communication as a whole, and journalism in particular." Gant's book, We're All Journalists Now, makes a case that citizen journalists will play a central role in the evolution of journalism in the next few decades.

A practicing journalist writes, “Journalists may not be ‘members of a priestly class’ but that does not mean they've had no training or that anyone can, or should, be a journalist. Anyone can aggregate information, make his/her own sense of it and publish it," but not everyone has studied the history and evolution of journalism and its attendant values, practices and theories. Additionally, people who have taken the time to study and train in the art of journalism have honed the craft of journalistic presentation by developing writing skills specific to the art of public communication.

In a five-page paper (one-inch margins, double-spaced, 12 point font), explore the idea of citizen journalism. How will audience members distinguish the work product of a citizen journalist from a professional journalist? What standards of evaluation should be applied to citizen journalists' work products? What, if any, limits should be imposed on citizen journalism? If citizen journalists emerge as a powerful phenomenon, how will journalism survive as a profession? Evaluate Gant’s argument and determine your own position.

Please use your text, your notes from the films viewed in class, other books, any relevant articles from class, and your own well-reasoned analysis in developing this paper. Don’t forget to attach a works cited page.