I like a little bit of spin. A little bit of attitude and point of view make stories much easier and more entertaining to read--as long as the writer is transparent about it. So, I disagree with SpinSpotter's mission to rid the media of all spin, or bias or point of view (or FUN) in any story. Newstrust, on the other hand, has the same goal as SpinSpotter but approaches it in less pervasive ways. It allows users to rate content as opposed to highlighting "spin" on a webpage.

Admittedly, SpinSpotter.com is beta ("very beta," according to the site) so I'm a little weary to make so many critiques. It doesn't have that many users yet either, so its full potential can't be seen at this moment in time. SpinSpotter only caters to Firefox users (again, at this time), and as an avid Internet Explorer-er and occasional Google Chrome-er, I was annoyed I had to download Firefox just for the program. Step One of.... many.

The idea behind SpinSpotter and NewsTrust stems from the theory that the press is the keeper of a healthy democracy. In SpinSpotter founder Todd Herman's open letter Herman says: 

"I subscribe to the idea that free democracies and freedom of the press are mutually dependent. If the people no longer trust that Free Press--as is now the case for the majority of Americans--what happens to a Free Democracy? We cannot have real honest debates on important issues until we can agree on a set of facts. A free and trusted press is key to that." 

Fair enough, I'm in total agreement. But who patrols the press? Especially when the press adheres to groupthink mentality as Herman states later in the letter? The viewers, the readers and the citizens in a democracy should patrol the press. Thus, a tool like SpinSpotter is genius. But it hasn't gained enough momentum to make a difference yet. For now, NewsTrust is SpinSpotter's sophisticated older brother. 

Back to the software. Part of the problem is that users have to highlight the "spin" in a story. And if you visit a page that hasn't been rated, then you have to do it yourself. That means the user has to separately select and look for spin in every individual sentence. Every. Individual. Sentence. There is no way to jump within the selected sentence/paragraph/story once you're in the software on the page. Time consuming? Check. Maybe there is a simpler way but a technologically inept person like me can't find it easily enough. Frustrating? Check.

Then there are the predetermined categories of Spin: lack of balance, reporter's voice, passive voice, biased source, disregarded context and selective disclosure. Each of these is totally subjective obviously. The software finds them in the selected paragraph and the user says why the selected text is a spin. This could be fun for a few minutes, then it gets obnoxious. 

All users have to be objective if this software is going to work and one person's definition of subjective material can vary from the next person's definition. I commend the effort to be objective because the flooding of the web with bad journalism needs to be monitored. However, SpinSpotter doesn't seem to go after one media outlet but has a mission to exterminate spin in all media, legacy and citizen alike. But it doesn't have enough users yet. So, installing the software for a test run for the purposes of this post was futile. I didn't find one scrap of spin unless I spotted it myself and maybe I don't want to thrust myself into the forefront of the Spin-hunt. Again, I commend the effort and interactivity SpinSpotter promotes and I think it's a great tool for people who are objective and unbiased but the site still hasn't reached its full potential.

Final grade: C. Needs improvement. 

On the other hand, there is NewsTrust.net, "Your Guide to Good Journalism." NewsTrust users rate the news on quality, not just just popularity. Quality, again, is subjective but there are enough users on NewsTrust to balance the curve. 

I was immediately drawn to it more because it is more professional than SpinSpotter and MUCH easier to use. And it is a guide, not the self-proclaimed savior of objectivity and force of transparency that SpinSpotter claims to be. Also, it is not as overtly interactive as SpinSpotter. So people like me, who like to check out what other people consider good (quality) news, can participate as much or as little as we like. 

I like the streamlined look and topic tabs. NewsTrust filters by content, which makes it even easier to select a single topic and read a handful of the day's articles about that topic from one page. It helps users find what they're looking for ranging from broad issues like global warming and wellness to region specific news from Egypt and North Korea. It's organized, easy to use, doesn't require signing up (unless you want to rate an item yourself), doesn't adhere to any one person's standards and I like it.

The main problem I see with NewsTrust, as is the problem with SpinSpotter, is that it relies on its users to be objective and rate accordingly. Any user can go in and rate some cockamamie articles for kicks and screw up the whole system. 

Final grade: A. It's made a believer out of me. 

This post brought to you in part by Spin. Without it, every critic would be unemployed.

Photos: NewsTrust logo, www.NewsTrust.net; SpinSpotter logo, www.SpinSpotter.com; Print Screen of SpinSpotter's Create Marker category drop down menu; Print Screen of NewsTrust's list of topics to search by.

Treating her with respect is understandable, but deference? Really? Even if we're talking about a potential vice-president?

Since she was named the vice-presidential nominee on August 26, the media has printed and broadcasted both story and scandal about Palin. Her daughter's pregnancy, inadequate vetting, supporting and killing the Bridge to Nowhere, using taxpayer dollars to live in her home to name a few. Clark Hoyt, public editor and reader's representative for the New York Times appeared on The New York Times Campaign Edition on MSNBC and answered John Harwood's question: has the media been unfair to Sarah Palin? 

"For the most part, no," Hoyt said.

"The media is doing its job, which is to find out who this person who was basically unknown to the country, except for Alaska, until roughly ten days or so ago, who she is what her record is and what she might do as vice-president of the United States. And possibly even as president of the United States...She should be treated with respect. Deference is not something members of the press should treat any political candidate with. Deference suggests caving in to the image that's trying to be projected and not asking the tough questions."

I completely agree. Up until a few days ago I wasn't sure how I would vote in the upcoming election. But now, with Palin out from under the oddball novice microscope and finally talking about her take on the issues, McCain has become less of a contender.

Back to Hoyt, though, who said: "Let's face it, the press and the campaign have two different roles. The campaign is trying to sell a candidate, to package a candidate and to present her to the American people. The press has a job to find out who this person is and what this person's character is, and what this person's background and record are, and the to fill out the picture for the American people." Go Fourth Estate!

With the election about seven weeks away, the American people need to know whether or not they can expect a significant change in the country come January. I disagree with what some critics say is an attack on Palin because she is a woman. Nobody was hesitant to ask Hillary Clinton tough questions nor did they criticize the media's motives when asking her questions about experience. Nor was anybody hesitant to grill Joe Biden. I don't think it is the media's job to protect a potential vice-president when it is the vice-president's job to help lead the Free World. Palin was relatively unknown and the press is gradually uncovering facts about her that may or may not have been known previously. Certainly these facts weren't known to the masses as they are now. Maybe that is where McCain faltered when he chose someone who is less experienced. Of course the press is going to be critical because it has to act as a watchdog.

On the McCain website, Palin has the tagline "A Fresh Perspective." The major "fresh perspective" I can think of is that she is a woman. So much for not making the campaign about race or gender. Other than that, her own policies and beliefs as the governor of Alaska are very conservative. She was chosen to balance McCain's liberal conservatism and is now being called a "maverick" by association. McCain was probably one of the better Republicans for the job, but in the eyes of liberals he probably did himself a great disservice by choosing Palin despite a boost in recent polls. Maybe it was a maverick move on his part to choose a woman for vice-president--it hadn't been done in a major party since the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 1984. But he chose an ultra-conservative, which, to me, negates his own more liberal views and plays into Obama's "more of the same" mantra. McCain chose someone who would appease his party not someone who would appease the country.

Credits: Images from Palin's bio page on gov.state.ak.us; Clark Hoyt, nytimes.com; Palin's shoes during speech, gettyimages.com; Sarah Palin and John McCain, gettyimages.com 

Legacy media outlets have attempted to adhere to the ethic of neutrality to reach the broadest audience by reporting "just the facts." By doing so, they allow readers and viewers to form their own opinion. 

On the other hand, legacy media outlets also produce work that is not neutral. For example, opinion sections draw on journalists and professionals alike to contribute. In most newspapers, including the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, there is a message at the bottom of the piece indicating the background and beliefs of the person who wrote it. Transparency is what makes these sections work.

I don't think transparency is more important than neutrality or vice-versa. Both have their place depending on what is being published and who is publishing it. If, for whatever reason, someone cannot be neutral, then they have to be transparent indicating how and why they are not neutral.  

Fowler includes audio proof of Obama's words at the private Pacific Heights fundraiser. She allows the public to judge for themselves before and after she states her own opinion in the original post. Here, she is transparent and acts as a citizen. Any other person at the private fundraiser, where Obama tried to explain Pennsylvanians to Californians, could have easily gone home, told a friend, sent an e-mail or posted Obama's words on their personal blog.

These were Obama's words:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Fowler is not neutral, however. She clearly states her opinion of Pennsylvanians and how it diverges from Obama's:

"Pennsylvanians are remarkably chipper. In the end, the material world that once gave them prosperity has not defined them. On the contrary, Pennsylvania unfolds in an interlocking chain of Turkeyfoots and Allentowns, held separately and together by a sense of shared community, of humor, of history, and of abiding faith."

Journalists are supposed to be neutral and objective according to Michael Tomasky. Fowler was neither. But she still calls herself a reporter. She felt the need to report what she learned to the public and that need is important criteria for being a journalist. Obama was wrong to put down Pennsylvanians to wealthy Californians and Fowler made that clear.  

Tomasky portrays Fowler as both a sneaky citizen and a sleazy journalist. He makes a valid point that blogging, like journalism, needs rules. However, because Fowler was transparent about her disagreement with Obama's words in her original post about the fundraiser, it is hard to view her as such a villain. In Jay Rosen's words, she "wrote about what concerned her in them...I was proud to publish Mayhill's account, which is partial but truthful, even though I recognize that it touched off an ordeal for the campaign, a media storm that isn't over and could hurt Barack Obama's chances."  The big issue here was that the event was closed to the press, but because of the world's ability to publish on a whim, nothing that was said could be considered off the record.  

Yet, nowhere in her piece does she indicate that she donated money to his campaign. She says she supported him and that is what provided her access, it is also where she fell short of transparency. Fowler's need to inform the public was an act of journalism. She was transparent, clearly stating her views and opinions. Her opinion was a citizen's, but her words were a journalist's. Yes, she was granted access for doing something un-journalistic (donating to a campaign), and obviously she was not neutral when she published her piece. Even the platform she published on--OffTheBus--is a hybrid of pro-am journalism. Rosen proposes that "Journalists, the pro kind, aren't allowed to be loyalists. But loyalists because they're allowed to write for OffTheBus may find that loyalty to what really happened trumps all. And that's when they start to commit journalism."

We keep hearing that the lines between citizens and journalists have been blurred but I have some sort of Darwinian faith that the ones who commit to the ethics of journalism, whether they be the ethics of transparency or neutrality, will be the ones who survive. Since the professional and the amateur are converging, and the spheres for privacy and anonymity are diminishing, the need for transparency has never been so imminent.  

Credits: ebnflow.com; Offthebus.net; Mayhill Fowler, Jay Rosen and Amy Holmes at a panel discussing semi-pro journalism, flickr.com

 Can a citizen journalist research and break the same type of investigative story a New York Times team can? Depends. If the blogger has the tenacity, means and resources to do so, then why not? Why can't we call that finished product a piece of journalism? Simply because the citizen journalist doesn't have the title?    

Perhaps documentarian is a better title here.  I do not consider myself a journalist just because I am writing this blog. Put another way, the act of writing this blog doesn't make me journalist. I am, however, documenting my perceptions of the world around me.

A journalistic institution has to approach a story, in this case Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, from an angle while still maintaining objectivity. But for a lot of media outlets, objectivity is the polar opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Nothing obligates a blogger or citizen journalist to be objective, accordingly, no one can stop a citizen journalist from hammering out their reactions, thoughts and feelings on a keyboard. Citizen journalists could sound off on Obama's "thank yous" at the beginning of the speech, or on the type of people the cameras on each channel cut to. They could criticize Obama's mannerisms or his wife's expressions, Biden's enthusiasm or any other miniscule detail and probably get away with it. Their only real obligation is to themselves and occasionally, depending on the blog, their readers. But the former usually trumps the latter.  It is  important to keep in mind one of Clay Shirky's points: people who create or share user-generated content don't necessarily intend it to be for general or even mass consumption.

A journalist knowingly adheres to an established code of ethics. Documenting something by being in the right place at the right time with the right gadgets is not enough criteria to be called a journalist. Just because someone attended the Democratic National Convention and took a picture (you know you saw the incessant flashes during the speeches) doesn't necessarily mean that person is now a professional photographer. Likewise, just because I'm writing my thoughts and ideas about the convention doesn't make me a journalist either. However, I am undoubtedly committing an act of journalism. Just as Shirky describes the scribes' battle when moveable type was invented, journalists are attempting to redefine their craft in a world where mass publishing is only a click away.   

Maybe the obligation doesn't even belong to bloggers or citizen journalists at all. Maybe it belongs to us as readers to distinguish when information is coming from a reliable media source and acknowledge when it is not. In either case, whatever it is we are reading shouldn't dictate what we think, what is important is that we are aware what is being said, who it is being said by and what the agenda is. The reader/viewer/media consumer should know more about a media outlet than its channel or website. They need to be aware of the source of their information and how it may or may not influence them consciously and unconsciously. That way if someone reads about Obama's speech in the New York Times or on washingtonpost.com, they know they're probably getting a more objective version of the story focusing on Obama's key points and the overall impression he was trying to make. Each publication adds its own analysis as well. Whereas, if they read a blog on huffingtonpost.com, they know they're probably getting a more liberal view of the story. Likewise, if they were watching coverage on Fox News, a more conservative outlet, a few things (like Al Gore's speech and preceding fare) were left out. 

A simple Google search on blogs hours after the speech came up with full text transcriptions of Obama's words. Some with comments, some without. While that may not be an act of journalism per se, it could definitely be considered a public service. Who knew bloggers could be so nice?

Shirky argues that, "The entire basis on which the scribes earned their keep vanished not when reading and writing vanished but when reading and writing became ubiquitous." And so it seems to be with the value of the journalist's craft. Now that publishing has become so simple, its value has decreased and the value of being a journalist has nearly disappeared. Now, more than ever, we have to place "professional" before journalist to designate our worth lest we be confused with the "citizens." Perhaps writing a blog with the resolve to achieve the same goals as an established media institution counts as an as an act of journalism.  However, unless the entry goes through a process of editorial judgment like Shirky says, simply pressing the "submit" button on a weblog doesn't count as an act of journalism.

Photos: Keyboard vs. Pen; Obama acceptance speech video; US cover "Here Comes Everybody" www.shirky.com