Wakati tukijadili kuhusu uandishi wa raia kwenye warsha na waandishi wa Afrika Magharibi hapa Dakar, Senegal, mmoja wa washiriki alisema kuwa hakuna haja ya kubishana. Jambo muhimu ni kutazama ni jinsi gani mifumo hii miwili ya nyanja ya habari inaweza kusaidiana. Alisema sawa. Hata mimi nakubali kuwa sio suala la kuchagua uandishi wa jadi au uandishi wa raia, kila moja ina nafasi yake kwenye jamii.

Lakini ukweli ni kuwa mabishano yapo na yataendelea. Sasa majuzi hapa mwalimu mmoja wa uandishi, David Hazinski, kazuka na kusema hiki kitu kinachoitwa uandishi wa raia ni hatari sana. Ameandika makala akatoa hoja za hapa na pale. Dan Gilmor, mmoja wa watu wanaosukuma gurudumu hili la uandishi wa raia akamjibu. Ningependa usome makala hizo. Sioni ubaya wowote wa kuwa na mjadala huu. Ni vizuri. Wale tunaoona faida wa uandishi wa raia tutaendelea kuelimisha na kuelimisha, wale wanaopinga, wajitokeze tujadiliane. David katika makala yake anasema:

Supporters of “citizen journalism” argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don’t provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn’t journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

Dan Gilmor anamjibu:

It is false, of course, that anyone who’s serious about this field argues that it’s entirely accurate or reliable (though it is often independent, and often covers what traditional media can’t or won’t spend time on). In fact, as many of us have been noting for years, accuracy and reliability are key areas for improvement.

David anaendelea kupinga uandishi wa raia na kutoa mfano wa taaluma ya udakitari kwa kusema kuwa huwezi kuwa “citizen surgeon.” Hivyo huwezi pia kuwa na “citizen journalist.” Anasema:

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people “journalists.” This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a “citizen surgeon” or someone who can read a law book is a “citizen lawyer.” Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

Dan Gilmor anamjibu:

Hazinski treads on the thinnest ice when he compares journalists with surgeons and lawyers, people who go to school for years and pass extremely difficult tests to earn the right to practice. There has never been such a requirement in journalism — ever. Nor should there be, for several reasons including the fact that a) some of the best journalists have never taken a college course on the subject; b) the skills required are simply not that hard to learn; and c) journalism is not a profession in the sense of being a lawyer or doctor. Journalism is a craft — a valuable and honorable one, but still a craft.

The analogy is absurd even if we pretend that journalism is a profession. We don’t go to the doctor (at least I don’t) to remove a splinter. We take a pin, sterilize it with flame and/or alcohol and remove it ourselves. We have, at some level, done a minor act of surgery.

And we don’t go to a lawyer when we lend money to a relative, or sign some kinds of agreements. We have a contract nonetheless, because some things with legal ramifications are simple enough to do ourselves.

Bonyeza hapa usome makala nzima ya David Hazinski na bonyeza hapa usome majibu toka kwa Dan Gilmor.