Comments on: Survey Finds Huge Gap Between Press and Public on Many Issues

By: PAXALLES

PAXALLES — Tue, 17 May 2005 00:35:28 +0000

How Do Attitudes Match Up With Activity?

How Do Attitudes Match Up With Activity?

By: bryan

bryan — Tue, 17 May 2005 00:11:24 +0000

Sadly, I don't think this survey is going to do anything, other than bring another round of pronouncements from journalists that they need to "redouble their efforts" to "tell the story" of the need for journalism that "comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable." It's in the DNA of the journalism profession.

By: Ira

Ira — Mon, 16 May 2005 17:09:38 +0000

James,
Not me - it was Helen Thomas who referred to 'legitimate reporters' (paragraph one of the
excerpt) and 'journalists' (second paragraph) as if the words were/are synonyms. My point was that this old cluck sounds as if she believes that only those who think and write the way she does qualify as journalists, and there are apparently many others who agree with her.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Mon, 16 May 2005 16:55:33 +0000

Ira: You and/or Rosenstiehl confuse a "journalist" with a "reporter," a distinction I've had some trouble with myself. One can be a journalist and still take a side. Is Thomas Friedman a journalist? I'd say he is. How about P.J. O'Rourke or Christopher Hitchens? In both cases, you betcha. Yet none of those people are primarily reporters. If those guys are journalists, then so are many, many bloggers. The requirement that one can only be a journalist if one makes his living doing it--or that doing it for a living automatically annoints one a journalist, for that matter--is absurd on its face. Aren't bloggers essentially freelance journalists? Those who build an audience can even sell advertising and make money doing it. A blessed few make enough to do nothing but write for a living.

By: Ira

Ira — Mon, 16 May 2005 16:38:45 +0000

Hi, James...
the following lengthy excerpt is from an article by Helen Thomas, well known as the (Howard) Dean of the Washington Press Corps. The whole piece of self-serving drivel can be found at
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/4377193/detail.html
but the excerpt is worth considering.

One does wonder where the lines are these days that distinguish between legitimate reporters and anyone who has a laptop computer or a Web site.

Where do the bloggers fit in? They may have something to say -- and nobody is stopping them. Still, the description "journalist" does not apply to what they do.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism at Washington & Lee University, defines a journalist as someone who "is professionally dedicated to truth seeking." He conceded that although the whole job description "has gotten muddied," Gannon shouldn't be considered a journalist.

Gannon was a propagandist, a flack for the White House. Thus, he fails to meet the requirement -- as Wasserman wrote in the Miami Herald last September -- that "anybody who enters the (journalism) profession makes a core commitment to do his or her best to determine and tell the truth."

Tom Rosenstiel, head of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said the proper question is not whether you call yourself a journalist, but whether your work constitutes journalism.

"A journalist tries to get the facts right" and tries to get close to a "verifiable truth," not to take sides but "to inspire public discussion," he said.

This isn't a requirement for bloggers with axes to grind.

Professional reporters and editors are trained to understand the need for neutrality in straight news stories. They also have been trained in the ethics that distinguish their profession.

It's in the nature of our work that the public has every opportunity to scrutinize what we do. No one lasts long in the news business if there are deliberate distortions of the news.