Log In | Register
AINE MACDERMOT
Legalize Cannabis
Articles Posted: 47; Links Seeded: 5738
Member Since: 2/2006Last Seen: 11/21/2009
Member Since: 2/2006Last Seen: 11/21/2009
33 Comments
Print
advertisement
Right up front I'll tell you that I am not a professional journalist, I'm not even a professional blogger, and I flatter myself by calling myself a writer, perhaps even a poet, even though I've never been paid to write, nor have I been published anywhere but online. I've never been to journalism school, but the earliest journalists, who were little more than gossips, ballad singers, and dissident pamphleteers, hadn't either. That said, having been part of this thing we all call the Internet for well over a decade now, having been a blogger before there was software for blogging, and having worked with computers, in general, for just over thirty years, I just might know a few things about the online world.
And while journalism is, as some say, a noble profession, if it is to survive and thrive in the modern world and in the future, it must be willing to change to become relevant to its readers, listeners, and viewers. In other words, journalism must evolve to embrace the Web while not losing its purpose. But in order to do this, journalists must learn about and understand what the Web is, what it's traditions are, how to be a part of it, and how to make themselves relevant to the audience that is already there.
The Purpose of Journalism
Arrogant though journalists might be, and as many blunders as they have made, it's worth remembering that the founding fathers considered journalism so critical that they sought to protect a free press in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The fundamental idea that the press is an instrument of liberty, providing a check on the abuse of the politically powerful and market-wealthy elites, is generally thought of as a central theme in modern democratic societies. The journalist of integrity in an independent press is supposed to act as an 'instrument against political power' rather than 'an instrument of political power' in the efforts of the press as a whole to provide for an informed citizenry, and also to act as a sort of watchdog over the conduct of public officials. Journalists of integrity ask the tough questions.
The purpose of journalism is to be the watchdog of the government and to oppose the decisions of the government that would have harmful effects on the people. This is what is enshrined in the cherished First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Traditionally, journalists have seen themselves as having a central role to play in democracy by revealing not only the events, but also the debate that takes place in the political process, as well as serving as sort of an investigatory arm of the public which looks into the often conflicting interests of those engaging in that debate.
Historian Thomas Carlyle, in 'Heroes and Hero-Worship,' Lect. v, written in 1839, quoted Edmund Burke to have said: "Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth estate more important far than they all."
The line between news and entertainment has been obliterated.
Competing forces to these traditional old media outlets come from emerging technologies and various forms of infotainment in media today. If nothing else, the success of various film documentaries, a genre that until recently was not held in high regard by either the entertainment industry or by popular culture, shows that an audience exists which is keen to engage with important social, environmental, and political issues.
It is, for example, no surprise to me why programs, such as The Daily Show on Comedy Central, have the large audiences that they do. However, when considered as a totality, these infotainment genres seem to actually offer a greater diversity of viewpoints and a greater depth of critique than traditional journalistic institutions presently provide, which is why they are gaining in audience even while traditional media's audience is shrinking. It may be that journalism, particularly on television and radio, has become part of show business where viewers are presented with out of context fragments that require little intellectual activity to digest. In short, news audiences are starving for substance rather than glitter.
Those from traditional journalistic institutions (old media) are keen to point out that whatever the value of these other genres, particularly the blogs, "it is not journalism" and yet they can't help but recognize their own shrinking audience numbers and are having difficulty understanding how to change to take advantage of the growing audiences in those other genres. Of course, there are some experimental things going on in old media today which may indicate a willingness to explore new methodologies in at least a few of these outlets, but these experiments appear to be mostly motivated by shrinking profits, not a willingness to interact with their audience or even admit that they aren't communicating the kind of content that audiences crave.
Defenders of traditional journalism are often quick to point to the bloggers' lack of balance, objectivity, professionalism, or even fairness, so as to distinguish bloggers' work from their own. They may be right, but we also must take note that the blogosphere and these other new infotainment genres are creating or attracting audiences which traditional journalism is failing to attract or incapable of communicating with, but it may be that new media have not allowed the journalistic process to dominate the purpose of journalism: to hold power accountable.
While many in the journalism field are committed to the purpose of journalism, others see themselves as personalities... and even celebrities. They get paid not just for the dissemination of news, but also to deliver an attitude, sometimes bordering on ill will, and often a very clearly discernable bias. Some of these so-called journalists are columnists, pundits, or television commentators. A few even move across media outlets from radio to television to print and to the Web, the more outlets, the better. For them it's all about branding and marketing a product... themselves. They carry an arrogance and a condescending attitude that exhausts and angers the public.
Arrogance enters into it because journalists have information, and information is power. Arrogance takes hold because they are given front row seats to news events and access to important people. They have press passes and organizations standing behind them, they have regular readers or fans, and thus, they feel a sense of authority over their audiences because they see more and know more than others. The audience feeds their ego, and the bigger the audience is, the more secure they become in their own superiority.
Many may not even believe what they present as 'news' to be accurate, but they live in continual fear of someone discrediting them, or destroying their credibility... as they should. In the past, journalism was a one-way method of communications, one-to-many. Journalists told us what they thought the big stories were, and the audience accepted that this was so, passively. Audiences had no means of pointing to bigger, more important stories that weren't being covered, or of correcting misleading information presented by the press, other than the Letters section of the newspaper, and even that was subject to editorial control. All of that's changed now, the means of communications has become many-to-many rather than one-to-many.
Socialized Journalism?
Today news, information sources, and other things masquerading as news are endless. The most successful Web companies are building business models based on user-generated content. The tools of production, from blogging to podcasting, are fully democratized by technologically-savvy and even non-geeky people who are creating a distributed labor force of unprecedented scale. In fact, it's rather easy to see echoes of socialism in the blogosphere, in the open-source community, and on the Web itself. What's really amazing is the amount of high quality unpaid work millions of people will do simply to fill the Web with content or to build and refine open-source software, which has changed both the corporate server (Linux) and the consumer desktop (Firefox). Few could argue that this work is unnecessary, of no value, not of professional quality, or shouldn't be taken seriously.
This evolution in the field of journalism isn't about amateurs versus professionals, but ideally it should be a sort of symbiosis -- each benefiting the other. Unfortunately, in the journalism field, this idea hasn't quite taken hold just yet. Professional journalists have this idea that "We are the professionals, you are not. What we say has worth, what you say has less worth." However, giant media conglomerates, bent on making a profit (the bottom-line reason they exist), seem to have somehow taken on for themselves an air of nobility by hijacking the traditional journalistic concepts of 'freedom', 'independence' and 'public interest' for their sole economic benefit (profit), while abusing those very same words to justify clinging to practices that, in many instances, refrain from challenging the powerful. The public has lost its trust in journalism, and I'm not entirely convinced it isn't justified.
But in the digital world, we don't need anybody's permission to do journalism, and we're not afraid to ask the tough questions, we're going to speak truth to power whether the professionals decide to be a part of this world or not. Meanwhile, their audience is shrinking... and ours is growing.
41 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Aine MacDermot's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (33)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
57
12
4.0
{"commentId":216656,"authorDomain":"farmer"}
Aine, you may not consider yourself a professional journalist, but you are a journalist. Professional attached to the word journalism only means you are paid for your efforts. If, like some academics who consider themselves professional journalists, you strive for the utmost in finding, storing and publishing information for others, then you are indeed a professional. There is no document, sheepskin or degree which makes one a professional journalist. For most of us we get to be that when we get paid for what we write.
The First Amendment gave us our most cherished rights to conduct ourselves as journalists. It protects gathering, publishing and distribution of information but most particularly publishing. The established media has always participated in the spoiling and outright denial of the First Amendment. It was the publishers themselves who helped legislate and enforce laws which are clearly unConstitutional. I wont go into a diatribe at this point but think about the various State laws which legislated newspapers of record and law reviews. These laws made some of the press more equal than other parts of the press. Government monies could be paid to newspapers of record but not to newspapers in general thereby providing power to one man's publication and not to anothers.
Another area of journalism that concerns me is the so called background, on the record, off the record , deep background rules being flaunted by main stream journalist. Too many times these rules help protect a source that should not be protected. These rules force journalists into situations where they are aiding and abetting wrongful or even criminal actions on the part of the source. Journalists should not be priests. All news should be reported. I am afraid government has learned to use journalisms own false set of rules to bring newspeak, misinformation, and downright lies to the public as news.
Aine, I am sorry. I came here to tell you how deeply I respect and appreciate what you do here at Newsvine. I know that you have been doing this for quite some time, here and elsewhere in your world. I hope you someday reap the rewards you should for being a true patriot and a very, very, excellent journalist.
Thanks for being here.
{"commentId":216656,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"farmer"}
- 9 votes
#1 - Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:50 PM EDT{"commentId":216678,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Ditto, I love seeing your wings, clicking and knowing they'll carry to the words that flow beautifully with thoughts worth hearing. You've insight and more than enough poetry in the expression and I don't read the "journalists" but never skip you..
{"commentId":216678,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1141885,"authorDomain":"sbutki"}
Of course you're a journalist, you silly. You're just not paid for it. You write better and think clearer than most reporters I've know.
And you nail the reason why shows like the Daily Show matter, are a good addition to people's media diet and why they are rising in popularity, months before articles like this.
You're a journalist, ok? Deal with it
Nuff said.
Next question?
{"commentId":1141885,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"sbutki"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1142253,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":216780,"authorDomain":"djehuty"}
There's nothing to add to what oldfogey and Pamela have said except, yes.
Great article - thanks!
{"commentId":216780,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"djehuty"}
- 7 votes
#2 - Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:30 AM EDT{"commentId":216800,"authorDomain":"irma"}
I'll add a standing ovation to the above.
While a formal education in the field of journalism certainly is useful (I've got one of those myself), as it teaches you things like context, professional deontology, methods and techniques (research, media, communication, interviewing, writing, ...) and several other skills, it certainly isn't a guarantee you'll become an excellent (or even good) journalist (look at me *grin*). Waving your degree therefore is pretty useless if you ask me.
As oldfogey mentioned above, being a professional journalist (as in getting paid) isn't a guarantee the work you deliver is of high quality either.
No matter the title you've got (professional journalist, journalist, citizen journalist, concerned citizen, ...), I think one's work should be judged by its merits.
Meanwhile, keep on being curious and inquisitive, asking questions, researching, getting to the bottom of things ... you do that well. :-)
{"commentId":216800,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"irma"}
- 7 votes
#3 - Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:09 AM EDT{"commentId":216938,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":216846,"authorDomain":"irma"}
An older, yet interesting read: Journalism Schools Can't Hurt, But Can They Really Help?
As it happens, I'm a graduate of two reputable journalism programs. Neither hurt me. Neither taught me much either, I must say. The truth of the matter is that you certainly don't need a degree in journalism in order to practice the craft with distinction. Many, maybe most, of the finest reporters I know received their degrees in the arts, law, biology, theology, and economics.
Everything you must learn about journalism -- the canons, the applicable legal issues, the ethics, best practices, and so on -- can be condensed into a couple of semesters of college-level courses. The rest is a matter of instinct and native talent.
Of all the best young reporters I ever hired, probably fewer than half owned a journalism degree. The others were journalists because they had the essentials -- the instinct and the talent. And because they were well-read, broadly educated, and smart. Smart and curious (and maybe disciplined) always trumps everything else in practice.
{"commentId":216846,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"irma"}
- 6 votes
#4 - Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:14 AM EDT{"commentId":216959,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":216970,"authorDomain":"irma"}
Google Notebook ... as in singular ? My, my ... :-p
{"commentId":216970,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"irma"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":217081,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":217134,"authorDomain":"chucks"}
I find the independent blogger/journalist more credible than the paid professional journalist. When a blogger publishes an article the passion and viewpoint of the author is readily displayed. The paid professional may write about a subject that they were assigned and do not care about and the viewpoint of the author may get masked or even altered during the editing process. Once pay becomes involved the journalist is inevitably compromised by market forces. The market forces the publisher to focus on subjects that its subscribers will pay to read, hear or view. This has both an upside and a downside. The downside is when important subjects are self-censored by the publisher for marketing reasons. Please keep writing. I value your viewpoint.
{"commentId":217134,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"chucks"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:42 PM EDT{"commentId":217182,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":217448,"authorDomain":"willseberger"}
Hi Chuck and others.
As a professional (as in, "someone pays me to report the news") photojournalist, I agree with much of what you said.
Although I won't say that I find the public 'blogosphere' to be any MORE or less valid/correct/unprejudiced than traditional journalism as we know it today, I do find it to be equally valid.
The very first 'newspapers' started as digests of discussions (along with the muckraking that has remained to this day!) and the happenings at local bars and places of congregation. There was very much a sense of community in those smaller, well, community publications.
Since the good old days of bar-room journalism, the world has gotten bigger. It is no longer feasible for everyone to watch/attend public debates, discussions or meetings. All the same, people need information about the world around them in order to live in it.
My notion of the primary responsibility of true journalism is to quite literally go where not everyone can in the hopes of keeping people informed. That means going into war zones, the White House, and natural disaster areas (of course, amonst others) to educate the public and watchdog the government on behalf of the people who can't be there.
Let's face it: Bush and his media policies aside, there is no way that the White House could allow everyone who so desired to go into the West Wing for press briefings. It wouldn't be prudent or possible for thousands of bloggers to descend on various disaster areas, crime scenes or courtrooms. For those reasons, 'professional' credentialed journalists representing traditional media will continue to exist.
My difficulty with the way that modern traditional journalism exists is that we have forgotten what our role in the world is. Our job is to provide factual, unprejudiced information to the masses, that they may be able to form their own decisions and opinions to discuss in the bars and gathering places (or even the Web) and with which information to cast their votes.
There are simply not enough journalists at any newspaper to effectively cover every aspect of a metropolitan area. And yet they try. These attempts only take away their time from their duty to be watch-dogs and to be a part of what the 'everyman' cannot be. This diversified focus only serves to make 'reporting via press release' and 'happy-fun-time' stories even more common and popular in newsrooms.
I agree that corporate owners tend to dilute the quality of professional journalism. Any publicly traded company(and a lot of the outlets are publicly traded) has the responsibility to maximize shareholders' profits. That often means operating on a leaner staff, or asking for more 'content' out of each reporter. I can also see where it would lead to corporate entities dictating, to a certain level, what will and won't be covered by a media outlet. The ethical practices of the industry should prevent this, but I can understand certain compliant reactions when jobs are on the line.
As to the future of modern media and journalism, I can't say where it's going. Efforts to provide readers/viewers with more has resulted in them getting less. Newspapers especially used to exist as much as entertainment (read: something to do) as a means of actually getting news out to people. People love reading/seeing about other people, but there are more and possibly better alternatives to print and TV today.
Journalists need to get back to their roots. Reporting on the issues that affect, intrigue and inform the world; issues that change the rules between government and the people and issues that affect lives. Interesting, insightful and important information will help the readers (purpose A of journalism) and will make money (purpose B of journalism and pretty much a requisite for A).
I'm sure I'll get pretty beat-up here for bringing money into the equation, but money does not need to affect the purpose of journalism. If the stories are good enough, ads will sell. If the reporters stay relevant, their mission of community service will be served as well.
The day is upon us where we see the 'citizen journalist' (hate that phrase; always have always will) usurp the power of the traditional press in terms of disseminating a broader opionion and more community information. Hopefully traditional media will begin working with citizen journalists to more roundly complete their coverage.
{"commentId":217448,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"willseberger"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":217480,"authorDomain":"djehuty"}
Although I generally agree with you, will_s, I think this is a much bigger issue than you say:
I can also see where it would lead to corporate entities dictating, to a certain level, what will and won't be covered by a media outlet. The ethical practices of the industry should prevent this, but I can understand certain compliant reactions when jobs are on the line.
For example this, but that's the smallest and most obvious tip of the iceberg.
I think it was Adam Smith who said that if you get two industrialists in a room then they're probably conspiring together. But they don't even have to be in the same room, or conspire: their interests are aligned and they have no reason to bite the hand which feeds them. The MSM (with the exception of the PBS, and the Australian ABC and SBS, and similar public broadcasters) are funded by advertising. Getting a reputation for questioning authority is likely to make a paper or a station seem radical and lefty really quickly in the minds of the business owners who place the advertising, simply because these people are conservative wealthy and predominantly white. Most of the products they advertise are as a matter of economics targeted at the wealthy end of the consumer spectrum, especially in the case of television. A shift to the left or even the liberal end of the spectrum, even a bit, looks to these conservatives like a shift down-market.
You'd understand far better than me how this translates into which editors are appointed by proprietors and which stories they choose and which reporters they encourage. Often the excuse will be economics. I really don't know the mechanisms but I know the effects. If you're in Australia watch the ABC or SBS public channels and the news is quite different to that on the commercial channels. The commercial news is sensationalist and crime-oriented because that gets viewers - news as entertainment is an understandable effect of the quest for ratings. But it's also incredibly conservative, and this has to do with the target audience - the advertising executives and their employers, and the station owners and their appointee managers. Murdoch by the way is famous for appointing editors who agree with his views and who then live in fear of offending him. So I doubt he even had to get on the phone to his papers in Australia, they would have seen his viewpoint on the media laws and expressed it. A "chilling effect" on free speech, that's called ;-)
Sorry to rant - you can see I haven't fully developed this idea anyway, and someone like yourself will have a better understanding of the mechanisms.
{"commentId":217480,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"djehuty"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":217742,"authorDomain":"chucks"}
Although I won't say that I find the public 'blogosphere' to be any MORE or less valid/correct/unprejudiced than traditional journalism as we know it today, I do find it to be equally valid.
Will_s, when I said I find bloggers more credible I meant credible in the sense that they are less tainted or corrupted by market forces. They may be more or less valid/correct/unprejudiced than paid professionals, but it is usually easier to get a sense of how their viewpoint may be prejudiced. Many state their beliefs or leanings in their articles. Paid professionals and their editors have a goal of being objective and nonprejudicial so they massage the content to present that image. This does not remove the influence of the journalist's viewpoint, it obscures it. This makes it much harder for the reader to get a sense of the journalist's viewpoint and I think that is a disservice to the reader.
It is my responsibility to judge and/or verify the validity of the facts presented in an article. Good journalists make this easier for me by listing the source(s) of those facts, but it is still my responsibility to decide the truth. I think journalists put too much effort into appearing objective. I find it much more useful when the journalist includes his viewpoint. If an issue is important I like to get information regarding that issue from sources with different viewpoints. Knowing a journalist's viewpoint makes the selection process easier for me. The journalist's work is therefore more valuable to me when I know his viewpoint.
{"commentId":217742,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"chucks"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":217372,"authorDomain":"tj"}
Aine your professionalism shines through in the way you convey and substantiate your message and this article is no exception. The truth of it resonates, especially with what I believe is your core message:
we also must take note that the blogosphere and these other new infotainment genres are creating or attracting audiences which traditional journalism is failing to attract or incapable of communicating with, but it may be that new media have not allowed the journalistic process to dominate the purpose of journalism: to hold power accountable.
Some believe that the failure of traditional journalism to attract or communicate is that the audience is getting dumber about geography, history, and politics and wants more entertaining soundbites that get to the point. When I tune into Leno for my comprehensive daily news-bites and he asks people on the street basic questions, I understand that perspective. However, many of us do get the details on-line and then want the humor to coat it.
One reality is that with customization of journalism, just as with the customization of music distribution, people are free to collect information they want to hear in the format they most enjoy. Holding power accountable in many more formats risks a certain dilution of information really worth listening to. This danger can be that people already know their preferred play lists and customization just allows them to listen more often to what they know they already like to hear... not necessarily new soundtracks that broaden our views or make us aware of critical information outside our channels.
When people select their journalistic "music" they broaden their base on recommendations of what "sounds the same" as what they like, rather than on what revolutionizes their thought process. For many, significant political threats to their freedoms are only recognized when carried out by an opposing party and "tuned-out" when conducted in concert with what we like to hear. I find myself swept up in this as much as anyone and have to do an honest double-take from time to time.
The journalist of integrity in an independent press is supposed to act as an 'instrument against political power' rather than 'an instrument of political power' in the efforts of the press as a whole to provide for an informed citizenry...
The good news is that we may have one of the most informed citizenry in history, but consequently we are also becoming more and more specialized with locating our "journalists of integrity" and wielding our "instruments against political power" as we see fit. I stay on Newsvine not because I like the music, but if I just followed my play-list I could easily float along in customized bliss. Thanks for your input.
{"commentId":217372,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"tj"}
- 3 votes
#6 - Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:56 PM EDT{"commentId":217382,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":217484,"authorDomain":"tj"}
It's easier to admire the people who make life an education than those that put up barriers to learning, regardless of their professional status or level of education. You write very well Aine.
{"commentId":217484,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"tj"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":217467,"authorDomain":"celestina"}
Many people don't like to spend time reading either books or essays online... and their education stops when they finish school.
I see this everywhere, and I could go on a long-winded rant here about the evils of the public school system...but I won't.
Instead, I want to commend you on a really brilliant article, Aine. For a long time I have contemplated the weird disparity between the "professional" journalism world and that of the "volunteer" journalists everywhere among us. I have never understood why the volunteers get such a bad rap, why they are combated by the professionals as if they were a threat. I think you nailed it here:
Arrogance enters into it because journalists have information, and information is power. Arrogance takes hold because they are given front row seats to news events and access to important people. They have press passes and organizations standing behind them, they have regular readers or fans, and thus, they feel a sense of authority over their audiences because they see more and know more than others. The audience feeds their ego, and the bigger the audience is, the more secure they become in their own superiority.
I had never thought about it in quite this way, but once you spelled it out, it makes perfect sense.
I hope you find time and inclination to write original work more often. This was extremely well written and thought out. I got a lot out of reading it.
{"commentId":217467,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"celestina"}
- 4 votes
#7 - Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:47 PM EDT{"commentId":218419,"authorDomain":"ansab"}
The only thing wrong with Aine is that she's not going out with me.
{"commentId":218419,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"ansab"}
- 4 votes
#8 - Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:13 AM EDT{"commentId":218439,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":1143790,"authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
I have to disagree with something:
The purpose of journalism is to be the watchdog of the government and to oppose the decisions of the government that would have harmful effects on the people.
I quote this source:
Journalism is a discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news, and more broadly it includes the process of editing and presenting the news articles. Journalism applies to various media, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, radio, and television.
While under pressure to be the first to publish their stories, news media organizations—each adhering to its own standards of accuracy, quality, and style—usually edit and proofread their reports prior to publication. Many news organizations claim proud traditions of holding government officials and institutions accountable to the public, while media critics have raised questions about holding the press itself accountable
The first definition embues the press with powers that it wishes and sometimes assumes it has - that of knowing better than anyone else what is right and proper.
Editorials properly hold governments accountable since they are clearly identified as the opinion of the writer. The inclusion of editorial privilege in the reporting of the news has harmed the mainstream press because of the lack of trust in the complete facts being presented. Editing is the process of correcting spelling, removal of excess verbiage to fit the time or space alloted. Properly done editing is not the same as editorializing or injection of a point of view in any article or presentation. There are some organizations that are more conscientious about keeping the two processes apart and clearn.
{"commentId":1143790,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
#9 - Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:09 PM EDT{"commentId":1143879,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":1143918,"authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
I inserted the link but it seemed to have disappeared.
I do not disagree that ONE of the purposes of journalism is as stated, it is not the ONLY purpose nor should it become so important that objectivity is lost in preference to deciding what is "for your own good." We do not need elitists in government (which we unfortunately do have) any more that we need elitists in the journalistic world. Let them be clear when it is opinion. Do not suppress facts or information that disagrees with the opinion or desires of the journalist.
Your definition narrows journalism and seems to promote the idea that journalists are somehow better able to decide things for the rest of the populace. My objection is only to substituting one institution for another in place of the judgment of the people involved.
{"commentId":1143918,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
{"commentId":1143924,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":1143967,"authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
Your last paragraphs do not address any change in your definition or purpose.
Your mention of Edmund Burke is far removed from the statement of purpose and the quote mentions only the Fourth Estate and his estimate of its importance.
I think we agree far more than you think.
{"commentId":1143967,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
{"commentId":1144001,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"commentId":1144023,"authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
The professional journalists are altering the news, slanting the news and even becoming the news. A fire fight occurs. In the process several soldiers and a female journalist are injured. We are subjected to a whole series of her treatment and evacuation to Ramstein Air Base. We got to see her moved to the airplane, 'waited' for her plane to land, and watch her transferred to the ambulance.
What of the others involved? We do not know. When it is convenient and serves the purposes of the media we hear about the dead and severely injured but a reporter always has precedence and is somehow automatically more important.
{"commentId":1144023,"threadId":"16209","contentId":"296312","authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
{"commentId":1144043,"authorDomain":"aine"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"16209","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
