In a traditional journalism environment (theoretically, at least), a reporter submits a story to an editor, who checks the story based on a list of criteria to make sure the facts are correct and that the story is solely an account of the facts and not the reporter's opinion of them. In a good newsroom, the same story will go to two or three different editors for the same checks, and (ideally) the different editors will have different backgrounds, different political leanings, and generally won't get along with each other; that insures that a story is unlikely to be anything but an account of the facts.

This ideal situation doesn't happen often, but it does happen... and most responsible news organizations at least make an attempt to reach that level of impartiality.

In contrast, most "citizen journalism" doesn't go through any fact-checking or opinion-filtering until after it's posted, and much of it doesn't go through any, ever. There's also a very fuzzy definition of the difference between a journalistic story and an opinion column in many people's minds, as evidenced by many of the questions and comments posted here.

While "citizen journalism" has its place, can it ever be an effective means of disseminating factual information, without a structured system of checks and balances in place?