What does ethics mean to a citizen journalist?

Citizen journalists. It is a term that has been questioned over and over again in the past few years. People outside the media field see this term as meaning someone who does the job of a reporter but has not been trained as a reporter. Many people I have talked to about the future of media mention that journalism is becoming something anyone can do as long as they have access to a computer and the Internet. It is true; anyone can broadcast or publish anything on the Internet and then they instantly becoming a "citizen journalist."

Some of these people have even broke major stories like Mayhill Fowler, who broke stories on both Obama and Clinton during the presidential campaigns last year. She may have broken a huge story but the way she got the story is ethically questionable. One thing that differs a trained journalist and a citizen journalist is ethics.

Ethics is not just one course in many journalism programs, but something that comes up in daily class discussions. A trained journalist knows they are making a huge impact when releasing a story, especially if it is as juicy as the ones that Fowler released. There should be a thought process that goes through a journalist's mind before they publish important information. How will this story affect the people involved? Why is this information important? Did I get this information ethically?

I am not saying that all journalists go through this thought process, and I am sure less and less do now that cycle of information is updated in a matter of seconds. However, ethics should be in the back of their mind, ingrained from their j-school days. Citizen journalists are not taught about the ethics of journalism.

The day Mayhill Fowler got Clinton's rant on her recorder she looked like an average citizen out to support his wife's campaign. When she asked him a question she was just another person behind the rope. If she were a trained journalist she probably would have identified herself and whom she was reporting for. That would have been ethical. Instead, she recorded the answer to the question and then threw it up on the Internet for the whole world to hear.

I don't think the way she went about getting the story was ethical. I also have a problem with the value of the comments that Fowler got (well more like stole, because both times she didn't ask for a comment for a publication, she just pressed record or eavesdropped). Why was it so important the world know these inner thoughts of these political figures? Shouldn't we be more concerned with their ideas for the future of our government? I would have liked to know the ethical process Fowler went through before uploading to the Internet.