"Powerlaws, Weblogs and Inequality." Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet - Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source. 8 February 2003. .

While the internet does have the potential to give a voice to all who are digitally connected, what purpose does it serve if that voice is never heard or if it is not heard by a robust audience? Shirky speaks about the audience distribution of blogs, with 12% of blogs accounting for 50% of the web trafficing in the webworld. The popular belief that the blog world eliminates hierarchical power structures and systems of inequality is debunked. Shirky's basic argument is "Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality." All blogs can not be equally popular all the time. What's more is that the more popular a blog, the less conversational it becomes as it becomes more difficult to maintain personal relationships with subscribers. Instead of being a conversation forum, it becomes a one-way point of entry into information.Conversational blogs then become the "long tail" of blogs, those blogs with few subscribers that can neatly facilitate interactive experiences between blog subscriber and blogger.

This article begs two questions when discussing citizen journalism (in blog format or website format): 1) should news be conversational #2) does citizen journalism threaten the same discriminatory hierachies that originally catapulted news blogs? In Andrew Keen's book, "Cult of the amateur: how the internet is killing today's culture" he insists that news is not meant to be conversational, objectional reporting is not something to be discussed and weighed in on. Media professionals are meant to act as gatekeepers to newsworthy information, society has entrusted them with this responsibility and such a responsibility is not to be infringed upon by everyone's uinformed and even informed opinions. Centralized power exists to maintain accuracy and order but the internet is based on decentralized power.

Also, if the popularity of news blogs is a result of the mainstream media's abuse of power, do online blogs threaten to recreate these same power structures and consequentially the same abuses? Theories purported by Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrell suggest that this is unlikely. Accroding to Drezner and Farrell, the news blogs often do not just serve as news resources but also as part of a checks and balances system for the mainstream. Therefore, their position in the news world is fostered in relation to the mainstream media's abuse of power.

The purpose of this project is to analyze the recent phenomenon of citizen journalism. The internet has created a new platform for the creation and distribution of information. The layman or amateur is now able to perform professional functions through news websites, blogs, photo sharing sites, etc. Newsworthy material is no longer guarded by a select few people who the general public must depend on to remain informed. With this new power that the layman has yielded comes responsibility though... or does it? Should the layman be held accountable by the same standards as a traditional journalist, if they are in fact performing the same function? Furthermore, is it really possible for an amateur to perform the same function as a professional? This is to say much of what makes a professional is based on the technology they have access to, a journalist is not simply a journalist simply because he writes or even because he has studied journalism but because he is a part of a recognized industry. Other issues surrounding the move of traditional print news sources move to the internet are to be discussed. What threat do citizen journalists pose to traditional papers' websites? Can anyone really compete with the Washington Post or the New York Times? Perhaps most importantly the question of why citizen journalism became so popular will be addressed. I hypothesize that technology has a great deal to do with it. People create blogs and offer their opinion to the digitally connected world simply because they are now able to. High quality camera phones and digital cameras allow us to interact in a way and with an immediacy that was never possible before, so why not indulge. But, beyond egotistical motivations I think cross media market monopolies must be held accountable. The homogenization of news material, amongst other things, has forced the "amateur" to take news gathering into his own hands. With the help of the FCC and deregulation, media conglomerates are now able to own mostly all of the venues of information for entire markets. Television stations, radio stations (i.e. Clear Channel) and newspapers are all owned by the same company in some markets, which begs the question what is being fed to the public? If we depend on these limited resources to inform an ever growing populace, everything from what the local weather will be like to how we will vote for the future of our country, then a lack of diverse opinions threatens democracy. I this very homogenization is part of the reason that the citizen has taken things into his own hands to become an autonomous news source.