It’s been a while since I feverishly tapped some words into this space, so I thought I’d come back with a rough set of interconnected thoughts, regarding crowd sourcing and free journalism.

This is something I have endless arguments over.

Whether people referred to as citizen journalists are legitimate, or just another slogan.

Whether free content makes me exhilaratingly optimistic about the future or violently pessimistic.

And whether I’m wasting everybody’s time by writing about this topic which has been covered ad nauseam by more authoritative and intelligent people.

But here’s why I think you should keep reading. My state as a journalist is still in embryonic form. The likes of Jeff Jarvis and Emily Bell (for it is they) have been doing this stuff for years. They’ve seen old media. They’ve worked in it. They’ve profited from it.

I’ve had no such luxury. My view of journalism changes almost daily, as do the minds of media bigwigs. Plainly speaking, we don’t know what we’re talking about. But we can have a go.

The phrase citizen journalist flashed across my radar about a year ago. It sounded like one of those godawful media buzzwords that snowballed in popularity until it stuck. I say this as a man who still sniggers when David Dimbleby says “If you’re into twittering…” on Question Time.

Silly word aside, the notion was that we were all journalists now. Well that’s good then. I’m glad my education was well spent. Digging a little deeper, it became clear that these “citizen journalists” were being used to document things that happened by chance in close proximity to them. Sky even have a function on their iPhone and Android apps whereby you can “send in a story” via the medium of a photo or video. It must be noted here that no money changes hands.

But you know all this. You and your 5,000 Twitter followers all follow the media movers and shakers. So what’s my point?

Put simply, the whole concept stinks. My colleague Daniel put it well, saying “I found some wood yesterday, does that make me a citizen carpenter?”. Merely possessing the new media tools doesn’t mean you can use them effectively.

Look at it this way. Imagine you’re cycling. It’s in your neighbourhood. Everything is going fine, the birds are singing in the trees, children playing, when suddenly a car pulls out and hits you broadside. The bike goes summersaulting through the air, and you with it. You crash down onto the gritty tarmac, littered with broken glass and fag ends. It definitely feels like you’ve broken something.

And here comes the dilemma. Do you call Tony, a lovely neighbour who you remember saying he did a first aid course a few years ago? Or do you put through a call to the emergency services? It’s definitely a no-brainer. Using the definition and notion of a citizen journalist, Tony is definitely a citizen medic. He knows a bit of basic first aid (for a journalist, some basic writing skills). He’s got a box full of plasters, tablets and medicine (the citizen journalist goes for an iPhone and a laptop).

Yet we all know that no matter how lovely Tony is, you’re going to dial 999 when you hit the ground. This is a somewhat extreme example, but it links to my main point of the idea of facilitating journalism, and producing journalism. The tools of a smartphone, laptop and pen facilitate journalism. They let you communicate whatever you’re seeing through those mediums at the tap of a keyboard and a click of a mouse.

But the effort still needs to come from you. It’s all well and good snapping away on a shiny phone, but what context does this really have?

For example, you witness a spectacular road accident. Does the fact that you were first on the scene make it some kind of special journalism? No, you’ve just taken a photo. If you took the photo, talked to passers-by, assessed the causes of the accident and then clicked the Send button, would that be journalism? Most certainly. Most citizen journalism falls into the former, not the latter category, which is why the “journalism” suffix vexes me. Why attach any tag at all to what is all too often simply people just photographing what they see?

Me indulging in some “citizen journalism” at an election count. Rest assured there was actual journalism going on behind the phone camera…

Journalists are done a great disservice by the idea that “citizen journalism” is a legitimate and modern form of journalism. It suggests that fact-finding, writing and adaption are no longer valued. It may seem like I’m throwing my toys out the pram a little here, but why should journalists be subjected to a disenfranchisement when Cityboys are still the masters of the universe, and law students are still cock of the walk? Pity the poor emerging journalist whose employability is endangered by the goon on the corner with an iPhone.

What does this have to do with the future with regard to free content? Well evidently, all this is “journalism” is done free of charge. Whoever is doing it doesn’t have to worry (they have the good fortune of having another fulltime job) and whoever receives it doesn’t have to put any more strain on their already haggard media organisation. It’s a win win situation where the journalists are the losers.

So what now?

If could answer that, I wouldn’t be sat here writing this blog post. I do have my own ideas about how to fund journalism in future, and like I said, I am periodically optimistic. There’s a lot of things I can be proud of and possibly look forward to. The dream (see about section) hasn’t died yet. But that’s another topic for another day.

Just don’t mention the c-word in front of me.