I admit that I was disappointed in the ambiguity of our class discussion. If I believed that the work of anyone with access to the internet and a couple of half-verified facts could produce free-standing journalism, then I would not be focusing my college education on the topic. I believe that a true journalist has several qualifications: (roughly taken from Mind of a Journalist, 40).
1) A loyalty and commitment to the citizen's privileges to truthful information
2) Some education- I am not going to snobbishly specify, but I believe that a true journalist's thirst for truth will not be sated without some personal fulfillment.
3) Rough belief in the "Fourth Estate"
4) Loyalty to the story
Referring again to the class discussion, I would qualify both the Tweet and the newspaper article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29cairo.html) as journalism. They both provide information with the previous goals in mind. The blog (http://www.gaurdian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/05/egypt-protests) ,to me, leaves the reader with more confusing at the end of the article than he or she has at the beginning---and not a probing, philosophical confusion, either.
The widespread availability of publishing technology blurs the line between journalism and publicly-accessible commentary. It reminds me of my days of high school track. I had a coach who was very fond of "throwing" sprinters into the 800m race, which is technically a distance race. Their times normally beat those of the actual distance runners, which was disheartening, to say the least. However, they could only ever do it once. After the first race, they knew how much it would hurt and were unwilling to put forth the effort again, as compared to the regular distance runners. A novice might produce something spectacular once or twice, but it takes a professional to create quality work, day in and day out.
No comments:
Post a Comment