The papers are full today with stories about "citizen journalists." (That's Will Ferrell as Anchorman Ron Burgundy to the left.)

Here's one in the Wall Street Journal. Here's one in The Washington Post. Editor and Publisher ran the official AP story. The Salt Lake Tribune copied the Chicago Tribune's coverage.

All these stories convey a common misconception. They assume this is a trend, and they assume that mainstream media will be able to dominate this new field.

Both assumptions are wrong.

In many ways this is a fad. It's a fad because, as camera phones proliferate, the volume of such pictures available is just going to become overwhelming. Making sense of what's out there, and getting rights to the good stuff, are going to be keys to success.

Also there is nothing really new here. Cable shows have been taking calls from individuals at news sites for decades. Talk radio is all about the callers. What's new here are the means the the medium, not the phenomenon.

But there's a more important point being missed in all the self-congratulation:

The major media aren't paying for this stuff.

As noted in this week's Clue, the key to success is a business model that includes the citizen-journalist, one that does not just take advantage of him.

Papers that use free editorial help are making a devilish deal. They're assuming that the citizens are honest, and looking for work based on their honesty.

This is just as true for bloggers as it is for publishers. You need some way to assure the readers that the game isn't rigged on the one hand, and some way to give contributors a stake in the game on the other hand.

No one, not even Dan Gillmor's Bayosphere, has even approached that question yet, let alone figured out an answer for it.