5 ms·

While I would agree that most bloggers should not be called journalists, I think that the author comes dangerously close to "no true Scotsman"-territory. Many,

by fjh 16y ago

While I would agree that most bloggers should not be called journalists, I think that the author comes dangerously close to "no true Scotsman"-territory. Many, if not most of the people commonly referred to as "journalists" (e.g. people writing professionally for big newspapers) would not fit her definition of a journalist. It is more a description of a romantic ideal than of the people actually working in journalism.

gbhn 16y ago
Definitely. I laughed out loud when reading about how "true" journalists always provide attribution. "Real" journalism on anything of interest is cluttered with anonymous quotes and reeks of the journalist's efforts to protect his or her contacts and food budget. It's also true that journalists often suppress actual news (i.e. the insubordination of military commanders, to choose a recent example that one feels from sub-text Jolie actually may have had in mind) in favor of gossip and party line "reporting." It was equally funny to read about journalists' unflinching devotion to questioning what they're told. A more uncritical type-what-you-hear crowd has seldom been seen. "Real" journalists are rather devoted to he-said-she-said kind of opinions-on-shape-of-earth-differ writing.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  "Real" journalism on anything of interest is cluttered with anonymous quotes and reeks of the journalist's efforts to protect his or her contacts and food budget. I think you watch too many Dateline-esque shows. Whether or not the stock market went down and what that means for the economy according to economist X does not require 'anonymous quotes'.
- yxhuvud 16y ago
  Yes, attribution is a funny subject. Ever seen an article about science that linked to the actual paper that was the reason the article got written in the first place? Ever seen a blog discussing science put that link in?

by fjh 16y ago

gbhn 16y ago

Definitely. I laughed out loud when reading about how "true" journalists always provide attribution. "Real" journalism on anything of interest is cluttered with anonymous quotes and reeks of the journalist's efforts to protect his or her contacts and food budget. It's also true that journalists often suppress actual news (i.e. the insubordination of military commanders, to choose a recent example that one feels from sub-text Jolie actually may have had in mind) in favor of gossip and party line "reporting." It was equally funny to read about journalists' unflinching devotion to questioning what they're told. A more uncritical type-what-you-hear crowd has seldom been seen. "Real" journalists are rather devoted to he-said-she-said kind of opinions-on-shape-of-earth-differ writing.

tkahn6 16y ago
"Real" journalism on anything of interest is cluttered with anonymous quotes and reeks of the journalist's efforts to protect his or her contacts and food budget. I think you watch too many Dateline-esque shows. Whether or not the stock market went down and what that means for the economy according to economist X does not require 'anonymous quotes'.
yxhuvud 16y ago
Yes, attribution is a funny subject. Ever seen an article about science that linked to the actual paper that was the reason the article got written in the first place? Ever seen a blog discussing science put that link in?