Did Fowler cross the line?

When it comes to citizen journalists, where is the line between ethical and not ethical? If an event is not open to the media, as a citizen journalist, should you be allowed in this event even though you are technically a part of the press? What kind of question is considered ethical? Where is that line?

Mayhill Fowler, a citizen "Off the Bus" journalist for the Huffington post has been criticized for her methods of getting interviews and information. Mayhill Fowler got information on Obama that could have severely hurt his campaign by going into a closed to the media session.

Mayhill Fowler

She also got an interview from Bill Clinton, where he called a writer from Vanity Fair, who wrote about his ventures with young women, "slimy" and "sleazy." However, she did not introduce herself as a citizen journalist, but had her recorder in clear view.

Were her ways of getting the interviews unethical? In my opinion, not necessarily.

The information that she got during Obama's campaign in 2008 may have been a little bit in the grey area, seeing as she got her information during a "closed-press fundraiser." She got in because she was a supporter of Obama; she did not make it known that she was a journalist.

In my opinion, even as a citizen journalist you are part of the press. If citizen journalists want to be respected, even if they are independent, they must still consider themselves part of the press. Because people were video taping and recording the fundraiser, the information may have gotten out sooner or later, but I'm not sure how ethical her actions were.

Whether her way of getting the information was ethical or not does not cancel out the fact that it was information that needed to be known. I believe that it was respectable for her to report about something she felt was important, even against a candidate that she openly supported. Reporting the truth, despite of your beliefs is exactly what true journalists should do. I don't think that people should criticize her for reporting some negative information on a candidate that she supports, do they expect her to hold back the truth because she feels he is a good candidate? They must not know what real journalism is about.

When it comes to how she got the information from Bill Clinton, I don't think there is any grey area at all. Maybe she didn't introduce herself as a journalist, but he recorder was in clear view, therefore Clinton knew that he was being recorded. Also, in a situation where you may only have time to get in that quick sentence, you don't have time to introduce yourself as a journalist, and public figures should know that every word is subject to reporting.

In the case of President Obama, I feel that she may have crossed the line because as a citizen journalist, in my opinion, she is part of the press and should not have been at a closed-press fundraiser, but although her methods of getting the information may not have been ethical, printing the story was in my opinion ethical, and she gave the entire transcript and allowed people to create their own views instead of manipulating the situation.

When it comes to the case of Bill Clinton, I don't think she crossed any line at all. She conducted herself professionally, gave the interview for all to her, and reported the truth.

This does show though, that citizen journalists still currently have more advantages than other independent media outlets and mainstream press. This, however, is changing. If citizen journalists want to be taken seriously, they must be considered part of the press.