At the end of today’s Journalism That Matters: D.C. sessions, we did the same headline exercise as yesterday. Only this time, our headlines had to start with “As a result of today’s experience, I…”.

One of the first women to state her headline said something along the lines of, “As a result of today’s experience, my list of things to do is much longer.” We all laughed, then clapped, because she had spoken for all of us.

Today’s conversations were as varied as the participants, but many of them were somehow related to citizen journalism, mainstream media and how the two can (or should, or should not) work together. By the end of the day, there were many more questions than answers.

… and speaking of questions, one of the small group conversations I joined was headlined “How citizens and professional journalists can (or can’t) work together.” I wrote down the questions that were brought up in that session. Many times, our attempts at collectively answering the questions just led to more questions. Here are some of the questions:

What differentiates “pro” from “am” (or citizen)? Is it what drives the product (i.e. passion, activism, expertise, or pay)? Is it the amount of pay?

Does the differentiation between professional and citizen journalists lie in how institutionalized their work is? Chris Anderson, a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, late in the conversation suggested mainstream journalists are perhaps more comfortable with “institutionalized” content contributors, or those who adhere to the journalistic principals of objectivity, balance, etc. that have been in place for more than 80 years. Sometimes the value of contributions from non-institutionalized contributors is higher when institutionalizing those contributors would effectively kill his or her voice….

Does the definition of journalist lie in how a person defines themselves?  Clyde Bentley of MyMissourian.com and the University of Missouri-Columbia said the difference may be that journalists “cover” stories, whereas citizens “share” stories. Or, is there just a big gray area that a lot of people fall into between “pro” and “am” with varying degrees of sharing and covering?

We also talked about mainstream (or traditional) newspapers and other media getting content from readers – different partnership methods (we’ll be writing more about the Lawrence Journal-World’s Citizen Media Academy this month), means of contributing, etc. That led to a discussion about how (or whether) mainstream media outlets can ensure the content gathered from the community is “good” – good is in quotes there because that question, predictably, led to some efforts to define the term.

So, that was how the day went – a ton of questions that led to more questions. But somehow, thanks mostly to the amazing facilitation of JTM founders Peggy Holman and Stephen Silha, most of us left with some clarity or insight into this citizen media movement and what it means for mainstream media. And, a lot of people us left with a list of things to do.