CNN vs. iReport

This iReport phenomenon is very interesting to me. It lets people write about stories that are of interest to them and their network of people. IReport seems to be the voice of the people insofar as people can write and report on things they feel are important to them, using the logic that if it's important to them, it would be important to others as well. I noticed they have a lot of opinion questions on the site which seem to encourage people to think critically and "outside the box". That being said, although iReport is cool and allows people to report on what they want, CNN still seems to promote an agenda of what should be covered. CNN still promotes an underlining agenda and pushes people to follow-up where they cannot and when they cannot. Another example is how CNN notifies one on iReport a general breaking story, almost as if to encourage one to upload and research information for that is relevant to that topic in particular.
On the side of CNN, iReport is a way for CNN to for lack of a better term take advantage of the little guys. An iReport reporter was paid by CNN to have exclusive rights to sounds from the Virginia Tech Shooting, according to our friend Wikipedia. While that person did get paid, I'm sure CNN got so much more selling it to other news networks, channels, and affiliates. Although iReport promotes free expression, it is just another way for CNN to say that they got it first, that they were there first, and I think it is being done partly to benefit them.
CNN.com is more world news with professional journalist reporting. CNN seems to have more world news and information that is not as accessible to the everyday citizen. Tougher stories that take more time to develop and that require more research are more common on CNN.