You give someone a box of bandaids–that doesn’t make them a doctor.

Yet, when we complain and shout that we’re worried about the state of journalism and the role it plays in a free society, we’re being seen as elitist. It would seem that skills and instincts honed over the years–either in school or the newsroom, or under the tutelage of a good editor(s)–means nothing.

Robert Ruby can’t sit in his Baltimore newsroom and think “oh, wait.. isn’t there a backpacker in Armenia who would have some interesting insight? Maybe I’ll call on them.” Or even a local so-called “citizen journalist” … in either of these cases: he has no idea who this person is, what their agenda is, how they are going about getting their information, who their sources are, how they got their sources, how reliable the facts are (if they’re even facts), what sort of conflicts of interests the person might be stirring up for any number of reasons. If I were an editor and was told I had to rely on citizen journalists as a form of reliable information, I’d jump from the highest window (which is, of course, not fact, but hyperbole, but since no one is checking facts…)

Regarding wire services–I’d assume that Carroll’s position there is that reliance on a wire service is a given, but it’s not enough–which is where her “make it local” point comes into play.

Not a lesson easily forgotten, and one which demonstrates the fact that objective reporting is a sought after goal at serious news organmizations. (Yes, they fail, but at least they try)

Organizations like AFP, Reuters, the AP and Al Jazeera are doing the overseas reporting and they do it for an English speaking audience — not for a government or a belief set. There are, in fact, more highlky trained reporters on the ground for these agencies than ever in their history. So why isn’t it a part of every American’s daily information meal?

Americans have full access to these sources of foreign news reporting and can use it individually via the net. For editors, it can be selected (at a cost) for use in their newspapers. It is a matter of people showing they want to know.

This brings us to what I belive is the really big issue: a lack of interest and trust. Each needs to be tackled in different ways. People need to know that what happens elsewhere affects them. Once at that point, they need another kind of help get through the firehose of information to news that one can trust.

Both take training. I would like to call to your attention a new program to do just that — one that ought to be emulated nationally, since newspapers are pulling back and people are reading them less and less in any case.

The Knight Foundation has just put up a very large sum to pick up on a move started by Stony Brook University to train students, first in the value of being informed and then, how to do it. Having had success in a few small courses, the university approached Knight to fund an expansion of the program. In the event, Knight upped the ante and laid down a challenge to do not just a few more courses, but to see to it all students at the uiniversity get a course in news understanding and assessment.

The first iterations start this year and in four years every single student on the university will have had their eyes opened through formal courses. If the newspapers won’t help, maybe the universities can, along with the citizen bloggers and other on the ground sources you mention. Once that happens, the newspapers may find the demand is high enough to get their own foreign correspondents back in the field.