I do not agree with the statement. Journalism is a form of art for which people need to possess a certain amount of talent, capability and skills. The key in good journalism is to render an event in a such as objective way as possible and I believe that a citizen or civic journalist can only give a one-sided and subjective view of an event. Therefore I would quicker accept something as ‘true’ from a source from which I know was created by the established (professional) journalism. However I do believe that civic journalism can complement the already established journalists. It is always wise to view a topic from different angles to avoid a one-sided vision.

Of course there are newspapers, websites , news apps and journalists with a ( political ) agenda and readers will have to keep this in mind when reading articles. Furthermore there is also a huge difference in the quality between the established journalism, but how people will judge that will be based on a personal opinion. Besides that in my opinion subjectivity isn’t necessarily something wrong because it can say a lot about the way of thinking of individuals, groups and sometimes even entire generations .

I do not agree with this statement. Look for instance at The Guardian, they have a mobile application where users are encouraged to send user-generated content like pictures, videos and stories. This way, amateurs help the professionals by sharing their material. Some pieces will even be published on their website.

Research has shown that the older generation of people doesn't use the internet as their primary source of information. They rather use it to complement their print media consumption. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the internet has a low trustworthiness score among consumers. They perceive traditional media as far more trustworthy compared to their online equivalents. The role of the user-generated news content is therefore limited. If people consume news online, they will go the the website of a newspaper or news-server (NOS for instance) which is quite trustworthy. They won't go (normally) to a random blog for their latest news. It's important though that people remain critical and realize that not everything that is written online is solid truth.

I think citizen journalism does influence the professional journalism because it can easily happen that false stories are taken over as real stories by media who don't check their stories properly. However I don't think it endangers the professional role of journalism because not everyone has the skills for this without following an eduction for it and moreover, citizens do not have access to many events and press releases that only professional journalists have. So professional journalists will always be needed.

Statement: Rising user-generated news content by amateurs endangers the professional role of journalism.

The role of professional journalist will still exist, but their job will have to be modified. No journalist can beat an individual with a web cam to the scene, this is fact. The job of inaccurate and spontaneous news is best left for those that are already on the scene. This raw and often taken out of context footage, needs to be pursued for the closer truth. This is the role of the modern journalist. Sit back and let the fools rush in. Don't be one of them.

Journalists have always had a flare for drama and so professional is in italics.

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” Mark Twain

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain

I went searching the web for another quote that Twain had said, but didn't find it. I'll paraphrase it for you. The newspaper is full of lies and exaggerations, I know this for a fact. I started most of them.

For 'hard' news, I don't think so. The distribution platforms differ between the two. Whereas unprofessional journalism, like you say, is distributed mainly on social media, professional journalism takes place mainly on news sites. I think it might become really difficult for lifestyle journalists who generally write for magazines such as Marie Claire or the like. User generated content on blogs for example I think could really challenge the role of these professionals. I believe journalists should be clever about user generated content and embed it into their stories to bring it closer to the people and expand their network. If a journalist collaborates with users he automatically wins a bigger audience and is able to offer additional and personal content. Therefore, I see an opportunity rather than a threat here.

I think it is very interesting to take into account that professional journalism is not necessarily addressing the truth. Most media platforms are owned by major media firms with a lot of money and power. I have done a International Journalism Minor and this revealed a lot of lobbying / politics for me in the world of ''professional journalism''.. I believe that user-generated news can also allow for some honest news and to keep some power into the hands of consumers..

On the other hand, the quality of validity of facts is obviously to be questioned by user-generated news but this too is the case with professional journalism. I think they are complementary to each other and not to be confused, they both have their own function.

I don't agree with this statement. I think this should be seen as an opportunity for proffessional journalism rather than a threat. This because user generated footage is a lot faster, it can be used as the first glance at the situation, and then build upon it professionally. I think it is the job of professional journalists to have non-objective views, and look at more angles, and to bring over the news professionally to the public. This is something user generated news usually does not have.