I remember the early days of the user-generated content debate. It was like proposing heresy. The basic arguments were:

• Nobody can shoot like our pros
• We can't vet the pictures to know if they're "real"
• What if someone sues over them?
• How will we be sure we have permission?

Most sites now accept user submissions. What's really interesting about this is that none of the above concerns have gone away. Pros still shoot like pros. You still can't vet a picture. Someone may still sue. You can't be sure if you have permission - someone could upload someone else's picture. 

But the acceptance of user content has gone from "Forbidden to Compulsory" in most newsrooms, as the reinvention takes hold. So what changed?

It's probably that The Other Guy Did It First. We looked at the landscape and saw our competitors accepting user content and saw that A) Nobody was getting sued and B) The stuff could be pretty darn good. Then we saw the very important C) It can help us tell a story, followed by the critical D) "Hey - we can really make money off photo galleries with user content!"

Now it's commonplace in all but a few holdout sites that we not only accept user content - we invite it. Heck, we even expect it.

But there are holdouts. And to you I point to the amazing work of The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. First things first - the journalists who work there are doing the impossible - reporting on a 500-year flood while keeping their wits about them. Like the New Orleans reporters during Hurricane Katrina, these journalists make the sacrifice of tending to their personal affairs so they can tell the important story.

And right there, beside their work, is that of the community. People - in the middle of a flood! - are contributing pictures of their neighborhood. I suppose they could be faking pictures if they're really good at Photoshop. But I doubt it. This is a case of simply wanting to show the world what is happening to them.

When the China earthquake hit, people who were on Twitter found out about it more than an hour before the news reported it. In this disaster, the community is right there with the newspaper, reporting.

Should we or should we not accept user-submitted content? The argument is over. We're all in this together.