Citizen journalism has played an important role in documenting history and offering alternate viewpoints.
Something that I think needs to be questioned with citizen journalism is intent. Sometimes people capture things on film accidently and as a result become citizen journalists. Does unintentionally capturing moments on video make you a journalist? And does it have journalistic value?
One of the earliest and most famous examples of citizen journalism comes from the Zapruder film, which captured the assassination of JFK back in 1963. When Zapruder set out to film JFK drive by, he would have no idea that his film would become the most famous (or infamous) home movie of all time. I guess in a way, citizen journalism could be referred to as accidental journalism.
With so-called “real journalism”, they set out to film things as a reaction. When tragedy strikes, a news camera crew is quickly assembled and set out to document something that is either happening or has happened, and document its effect. It is rare that the legacy media is filming a news-worthy story before it actually happens.
So to reiterate, does the intent to capture things on video/photo affect the way we perceive media?