5 ms·

How’s that? Seems like it’s just saying “we’re not going to treat you like a journalist if you don’t claim to be one, and you can’t claim to be one without havi

• nickff 6y ago
  >"this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work" They're saying that they use journalistic work as a standard of who's a journalist... that's circular.
  • iNate2000 6y ago
    How else would you define who is a journalist? How can one be a journalist without doing journalistic work? Are you looking for a definition of "journalism"?
  • Bjartr 6y ago
    Where "journalistic work" means "has published an article or video that at least purports to be reporting facts, or something equivalent to that". If you claim to be a journalist, but can't point to something you've published, then you're not included. If you claim to be a journalist, and can go "here's three articles I published in a local newspaper (for example)", then you're included.
    • chrisseaton 6y ago
      So how can you be a journalist in order to write your first articles if you're not allowed to be a journalist until you've written your first articles?
      • joshuamorton 6y ago
        The point is that this particular site, which reports on police violence against journalists, is being somewhat conservative in how they define journalist. That seems fine.
      • tines 6y ago
        > be a journalist in order to write your first articles Says who? Writing an article is what makes you a journalist. You don't need to be a journalist to write. This whole "the definition is circular" argument is bizarre, it's like something from Zeno trying to prove that movement is impossible because first you have to move. "So how can you be a mover in order to make your first movements if you're not allowed to be a mover until you've made your first movements?"
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • tines 6y ago
    Not at all. That's like saying that "a boxer is someone who does boxing" is circular. It's only circular if you define boxing as "that which is done by a boxer", instead of "striking an opponent with such-and-such ruleset, this equipment, etc. in an event sanctioned by such-and-such organization."
• skrtskrt 6y ago
  They arrest everyone then later can say oh oopsie journalist we let him go. It's still an obvious authoritatian intimidation tactic and information suppression tactic to be throwing these people in jail and letting them wait sometimes days for the situation to get sorted out.
  • tines 6y ago
    But that has nothing to do with it being a circular definition.
• slim 6y ago
  journalistic work is actually well defined with methodolgy, ethics and authoritative institutions. it's not difficult to prove that some work is journalistic
• chrisseaton 6y ago
  If someone asks you for a definition of 'rabbit' and you tell them it's 'something that is rabbity' then they're going to ask you what is 'rabbity'... and likely you'd reply 'it's like a rabbit'. Goes in a circle, see? A journalist is someone who does journalistic things. What are journalistic things? Well they're things a journalist does.
  • marricks 6y ago
    I get what you're saying but "track record of journalistic work" is not as ambiguous as "rabbity". Unless they're being disingenuous one would reasonably expect that means published work or blog/social postings relating to current events.
  • tines 6y ago
    No one defines journalism as "what a journalist does," so there is no cycle. If you ask Google to define "journalism," you get, "the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast." See, no use of the word "journalist" in that definition, so no circle.