While there will be some bias from being challenged, I think there's also plenty of good reasons for journalists to challenge these sorts of companies.
Journalism is a profession and brings with it a lot of ethical considerations. Teaching of journalism goes into depth on why the ethics are important, how to report on sensitive topics, and all sorts that makes journalists far better qualified to report on things.
There's absolutely a place for self-taught/hobbyist writing, but it's not journalism, and if we depend on it for the "important" or hard topics we'll lose out on the benefits that well trained journalists bring to the table.
I don't know much about CNN, and don't watch Fox, but from what I've heard the actual news segments on Fox aren't as bad, it's the opinion shows (most of which masquerade as news) that are the bad bit.
In the UK we have several popular news channels and each has their own leanings, and while I think it's important that viewers are mindful of those leanings, I don't think it's too far out there to say that one can assume they are not being out-right lied to, and it's rare for a news channel to ever say something actually dangerous. There are issues, there are complaints made, but then there are typically retractions and the issues are fairly rare, compared to what I've seen of US media.
Again I think there's a place for blogging, factual videos on TikTok, people working their way into the industry more organically, and special interest groups, etc. But I do think there's a need for the bulk of mainstream news to live up to the responsibility they have to the public.
"Journalist" doesn't need to be co-opted by a private org or the government, does it?
a critical part of journalism is choosing what not to cover. people pay attention to the things it's easy to pay attention to, and good journalism makes sure that the news that is front-and-center and easiest for people to find is actually news. not every crime scene is newsworthy, most are incredibly personal and sensitive moments for at least one party involved, and the coverage should take that into account. pointing a livestreaming camera at the victim of every assualt or robbery is not providing any benefit to society.
Of course we should be sensitive to victims and I don't think sensationalizing things is beneficial, but I also think that most of what I personally use Citizen for is to figure out what is happening near me in the neighborhood in real time. Like, "why is it suddenly smoky outside," or, "why are there a lot of police helicopters flying over us right now?"
I'd describe it more along the lines of there only being so many hours in a day, and only a subset of those that journalists are paid for. It simply isn't necessarily possible to cover every crime, political choice, special event, upcoming event, and more, with the nuance it likely deserves.
Your objection, to me at least, reads more like a complaint about journalists not putting every action in and by the city front and center. But if everything is front and center, does that mean everything is, or nothing? We get into a lack of space on the front page, lack of time to read it, and lack of places to put up notices that are essential. We essentially run into what Arthur Dent did in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy [0], with "essential news" buried because something more essential was already there.
Regarding realtime use of Citizen that you described below, that doesn't sound like a bad use-case. I know it's not for me though. Having every incident sent via push notification (which I can only assume will occur on a long enough timeline to increase engagement) doesn't sound good for anyone's mental health. We may not be there yet, but I'm not sure I want to partake in encouraging society moving in that direction.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on...
pointing a livestreaming camera at the victim of every assualt or robbery is not providing any benefit to society
This is especially true in the context of SF where the police/DAs are refusing to prosecute anyone. Videos keep the authorities honest.
Video "lying" involves video distorting the entirety of a situation by only showing one and part of an overall action. The thing about such lying is it easy, effortless. A perfectly sincere person can walk into the middle of situation, film it, show an incorrect picture and not know it.
And the problem here is that many/most people operate with the assumption "either X is true or he's a liar" and videos that a bad picture of an event may have no intentional liars attached, which can give them more credibility than should have.
I don't think it's journalism if it doesn't have a filter. IMHO, the job of journalists is to filter through a bunch of garbage to produce something that's succinct, informative, and as truthful as possible (given the constraints). Publishing a stream of raw garbage is not that.
One thing I do seem to see over and over is a pattern where journalists are a little annoyed when companies encroach on the role of journalists but do so for less money. I'm sure this doesn't rise to a level of conscious bias, but it does sometimes feel that anything that threatens their gatekeeping is going to get a lot of flak in the opinion section.