Friday, December 14, 2007

Ever wonder what they think of you?

What are those journo types out there in media land really thinking about the new citizen journalism movement?

DO they welcome the competition? Do they embrace the opportunity to improve themselves by forging in the fires of battle?

Or do they just dismiss it with contempt for the 'regular people' who haven't had the TRAINING, the EXPERIENCE, the ETHICAL backgrounding, and cannot POSSIBLY meet the standards of 'professional' journalism.....?

Uh, yeah, it's the latter.

Key sentence -- "the news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend."

As if the news industry was some sort of government regulatory agency, or congress or something.

That is how they think of themselves, of course, and in a world of their making, that is what they would BE. Bloody frightening.

'Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted (?) professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip'.

Well, excuse us for believing that, with the education this great country provides, we're qualified to write complete sentences that communicate ideas, or that we're qualified to look at something and describe it. Good grief, do these people have an overinflated, hyper-egotistical view of themselves or what? "the act of collecting and distributing" facts and information IS journalism, and there is nothing more to it than that.

Unless he's talking about op-ed journalism, which has little to do with facts and a lot to do with opinion. Like that other thing, we've all got one.

'But unlike those other professions, journalism — at least in the United States — has never adopted uniform self-regulating standards (there's a reason-- they can't maintain a standard that isn't laughable). There are commonly accepted ethical principals — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principals is voluntary. '

As high a level of function as this man is apparently claiming to have, one might think a similarly high standard of SPELLING might apply-- but no.

It's PRINCIPLES, you arrogant jerk. Unless you meant highly ethical school officials, which I doubt.

He put it in that paragraph twice-- principals. HAH.

This man believes that journalists should regulate journalism, so standards will be adhered to, and he can't even spell. Nor can the presumptive editors, 'fact checkers', layers of reviewers, etc.

Dan Rather, I miss you.

HT Riehl World View.

No comments: