Just what is a journalist anyway??
Those of you who take MAC250 will understand just how hard this question is to answer and how frustrating it is for Phil to chuck your ideas out the window just when you think you've cracked it!!
When we were talking about this in class on Friday, it really got my little brain ticking. with increasingly sophisticated technology and the rise of social media, how exactly do u distinguish between a journalist, a blogger and indeed a normal citizen?
Tony Harcup defines a journalist as someone who "informs society about itself and makes public that which otherwise would be kept private."(2005:2).
Under this defintion, surely bloggers would be considered journalists? Fair enough, not every blogger has the sole purpose to inform society about itself and make certain private information public, however, a lot of people do this in their blogs. For example, Jackie Danicki's recent post about her being attacked on the London underground would surely be considered as informing society about itself? And if it weren't for Jackie, nobody would have ever heard about this incident. Does this make her a journalist?
Citizen journalism is another complication to this definition. "Citizen's have been capturing videos of tornado's and other natural disasters for years and cable television caters to voyeurs with a variety of shows featuring citizen-captured police chases, embarrassing moments, and the like." (Gillmor 2004:35)
As well as these events, terroris attacks are usually filmed by the public and this footage is often what appears on the news. Situations like this are rapidly on the rise due to increasingly sophisticated technology. "As cameras become just one more thing we all carry everyday, everyone's becoming a photographer." (Gillmor 2004:34)
Mobile phones are also contributing to this. Phones without cameras virtually don't exist anymore meaning that if anything news worthy did happen, there isn't many people who wouldn't be in a position to capture it on film. For example, the man who recorded the London tude after the bomb on 7/7. This footage would never had been seen if it wasn't for his actions. Does this make him a journalist?
However, Harcup further complicates things by stating that a journalist is someone who get's paid to do these things. Although this takes bloggers out of the equation what about the citizen's who capture event on film and then sell the footage or pictures to TV stations and newspapers. Can someone really be considered a journalist just because they were in the right place at the right time? Or is it the intitive to film the event that makes them worthy of this title? or indeed is it just ridiculous to call someone in this situation a journalist?
See, it's really not very easy to define a journalist at all! Is a journalist just simply somebody who see things through the eyes of the public, writes their stories based on this and gets paid for it?
One final thought, when you think of 9/11, what images do you see in your head? Whatever they are, it is likely that this footage was captured by an average joe, a tourist maybe, if the footage was professional, would it have been different? If so, would it have been better? Maybe the answer to the 'what is a journalist?' brain teaser lies in this very question?
Anyway, I think i have given you plenty to comment on and I might even have the makings of an essay in this post (What do you think Phil?!).
Please leave as many comments as possible, it will help me with my essay for MAC250!
When we were talking about this in class on Friday, it really got my little brain ticking. with increasingly sophisticated technology and the rise of social media, how exactly do u distinguish between a journalist, a blogger and indeed a normal citizen?
Tony Harcup defines a journalist as someone who "informs society about itself and makes public that which otherwise would be kept private."(2005:2).
Under this defintion, surely bloggers would be considered journalists? Fair enough, not every blogger has the sole purpose to inform society about itself and make certain private information public, however, a lot of people do this in their blogs. For example, Jackie Danicki's recent post about her being attacked on the London underground would surely be considered as informing society about itself? And if it weren't for Jackie, nobody would have ever heard about this incident. Does this make her a journalist?
Citizen journalism is another complication to this definition. "Citizen's have been capturing videos of tornado's and other natural disasters for years and cable television caters to voyeurs with a variety of shows featuring citizen-captured police chases, embarrassing moments, and the like." (Gillmor 2004:35)
As well as these events, terroris attacks are usually filmed by the public and this footage is often what appears on the news. Situations like this are rapidly on the rise due to increasingly sophisticated technology. "As cameras become just one more thing we all carry everyday, everyone's becoming a photographer." (Gillmor 2004:34)
Mobile phones are also contributing to this. Phones without cameras virtually don't exist anymore meaning that if anything news worthy did happen, there isn't many people who wouldn't be in a position to capture it on film. For example, the man who recorded the London tude after the bomb on 7/7. This footage would never had been seen if it wasn't for his actions. Does this make him a journalist?
However, Harcup further complicates things by stating that a journalist is someone who get's paid to do these things. Although this takes bloggers out of the equation what about the citizen's who capture event on film and then sell the footage or pictures to TV stations and newspapers. Can someone really be considered a journalist just because they were in the right place at the right time? Or is it the intitive to film the event that makes them worthy of this title? or indeed is it just ridiculous to call someone in this situation a journalist?
See, it's really not very easy to define a journalist at all! Is a journalist just simply somebody who see things through the eyes of the public, writes their stories based on this and gets paid for it?
One final thought, when you think of 9/11, what images do you see in your head? Whatever they are, it is likely that this footage was captured by an average joe, a tourist maybe, if the footage was professional, would it have been different? If so, would it have been better? Maybe the answer to the 'what is a journalist?' brain teaser lies in this very question?
Anyway, I think i have given you plenty to comment on and I might even have the makings of an essay in this post (What do you think Phil?!).
Please leave as many comments as possible, it will help me with my essay for MAC250!
posted by Charlie at
6:51 AM
1 Comments:
I don't think there is such a thing as a journalist anymore. We constantly see and hear things that may not make newpapers/tv/radio etc... but we might tell out friends, surely that's informing society. After all, one person could tell 10 people and then those 10 tell another ten and so on. The paid journalism is just the same as citizen journalism (apart from the wage of course). And besides, who defines what people get paid in. Maybe a gossip queen at the local pub gets her payment out of the bitchy rumours she pours out in the pub on a night out. God help us if she is a journalist.
By
Unknown, at 5:09 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home