Jeff Jarvis suggests we replace the term “citizen journalism” with “networked journalism”: “Networked journalism” takes into account the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the process more than the product." The way he strings together those words almost makes me agree just on the basis of the beauty of the statement. However, Andrew Grant-Adamson, a former lecturer of mine at City University disagrees strongly. In "I'm sticking with citizen journalism" he writes: "Journalism has always depended on networks, networks of sources and people prepared to publish. Journalism cannot exist without networks whether they be in cyberspace or the physical world. To appropriate the word in this way is entirely wrong." Hmm.. I can't seem to make up my mind, but find the discussion intriguing.