News University | Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists. |
| |
Webinars | Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more. | |
|
|
 
Romenesko
Latest News
Reporting
& Writing
Ethics &
Diversity
Leadership
& Business
Visual
Journalism
Online &
Technology
TV &
Radio
Journalism
Education
|
Article Feedback
View all Romenesko feedback
What happens if nothing saves journalism?
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback |
Feedback Guidelines |
Report Feedback Abuse
Page 1 of 1
This is a golden age of journalism
Posted by
Ken Bilderback
6/8/2009 3:44:49 PM
Alex is correct: Journalism is dying only if you accept a very narrow definition of the word.
That narrow view is what's killing newspaper com...
Alex is correct: Journalism is dying only if you accept a very narrow definition of the word.
That narrow view is what's killing newspaper companies. Journalism is not dying; it's flourishing, finding new voices and platforms at a rate never seen before.
Unless newspapers recognize and embrace that reality, their slow suicide will continue and few tears will be shed at their eventual demise.
Not to give Poniewozik a hard time
Posted by
Alex Dering
6/8/2009 2:37:38 PM
The piece focuses -- entirely -- on the wrong question. In fact, it uses as its thesis a null-content statement.
Poniewozik defines "journalis...
The piece focuses -- entirely -- on the wrong question. In fact, it uses as its thesis a null-content statement.
Poniewozik defines "journalism" as "a profession and as currently constructed: a full-time job paid for by newsgathering entities through a combination of subscriptions and advertising."
He then employs the same term ("journalism" or "journalist") in multiple slightly different ways. None of the replacements ARE the "journalism" of his definition, but he keeps using "journalism" or "journalist" to describe the thing that will replace what we now define as journalism.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that journalism, as currently practiced, is at the end of a long drop in quality, independence, and overall competence. Current journalism does not deserve to survive. It isn't the stuff that was taught in journalism school. It's the triple-bleached goo (to quote C. Montgomery Burns) that has replaced home-made bread. We've been eating goo for so long we've pretty much forgotten that real bread can handle cold butter without tearing gashes into the slice.
Examples of what I'm talking about are easily seen in just about every national-level organization.
So what's the "right" question? How about "What has happened, historically, in countries where a rigorous, free press has either been eliminated or is controlled by government/corporate interests?"
My suspicion is that American culture has become antithetical to journalism. And I suspect it started when journalism went to the 24-hour cycle. By eliminating the "now it's time for the News" aspect, it lost its potency and specialness.
Page 1 of 1
View all Romenesko feedback
|
|
