Journalism isn't something that can be easily defined; it isn't simple enough to be covered by a single definition. It's an ever-evolving profession; from the print press of the 19th century, the radio broadcasts of the 1940s, all the way to the expansion of mobile internet news that we see today - it covers many aspects that you must take into consideration before labelling it. To discover a general definition of journalism, I must first collect opinions, both positive and negative, of what journalism is.Taken from his book 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (A Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream)', Hunter S. Thompson, a famous American author and journalist, said:"Journalism is not a profession or a trade.
It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits -- a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage." (Thompson and Steadman, 2005: Part 2, chapter 13)This heavily negative view point, from the father of Gonzo journalism, expresses his contempt of journalism as a whole, and emanates from many years of being a frontline Gonzo journalist, which involves blurring the lines of fact and fiction.On the other hand, the late Phil Graham, who co-owned and published the Washington Post, said in a speech to the overseas correspondents of Newsweek, and although slightly out of context, that: "Journalism is a first rough draft of history." This is a very romantic view of journalism, and is often quoted to symbolise how important truthful journalism is to our history and us.
Last but one, from his book 'My Trade', Andrew Marr, once editor of The Independent and BBC News, said he believes: "Journalism is a chaotic form of earning, ragged at the edges, full of snakes, con artists, and even the odd misunderstood martyr" (Marr, 2005: 3). Marr employs a fairly honest and neutral view, suggesting that journalism is today seen more as a way of earning, opposed to in the past being the voice of the people, but still has the power to have a positive and a negative effect on us.Finally, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, in The Elements of Journalism, believe:1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizens.3. Its essence is discipline of verification.4.
Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
10. It's the rights and responsibilities of citizens. (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2001)With the help of these eclectic views we start to get a broad but basic view on what journalism is. But whilst I believe that these definitions all have an element of truth within them, I don't believe they sum up truly what journalism is.
So, to truly refine the definition, I need to take a look over the past 100 years and how journalism, and the notions of it, have changed.During the first half of the 20th century, journalism was perceived as a profession in which you had to be trained. Traditional mediums of journalism would often be dominated by serious news, written by qualified journalists. The similarity of these traditional mediums was that they were closed journalism: one-to-many. We saw this closed journalism for many decades, and so our perception of journalism was standardized. In the second half of the 20th century, journalism was a profession in which you had to be qualified in.
Around the time of WWI the only technology available to journalism was print press. Print had a firm grip on the profession, and journalism was widely considered to be a trustworthy source of information. There were few other ways of spreading, or verifying, news. Newspapers would often take advantage of this and run fictitious headlines to aid governments. For example, in Britain, to stir up hatred for the already disliked Germany, newspapers published headlines such as: "Belgium child's hands cut off by Germans." Journalists, at that point in time, were tasked with delivering propaganda for the betterment of the U.
K. - newspapers were effectively run by the government, to help the government, giving people what they wanted to hear. And in return, Journalism was believed to be truthful and was a trusted profession.Fast forward to today and you see a complete change in contents and ethics. What used to be propaganda is now entertainment news and gossip and widely regarded as just another profit centre.
In this day and age, competition is forcing media outlets to have to publish stories that sell. Because of this, journalism's ethics can be compromised as the media is torn between truth and profit.An example of this was the recent Max Mosley sex scandal case, in which the News of the World fictitiously produced a story alleging that he took part in a "sick Nazi orgy."(Holmwood - Fitzsimmons, 2008, page 1) This type of scandal, where truth is at a premium, has resulted in mistrust in the public's eye, so much that in 'Journalism: Principles and Practise', by Tony Harcup, he states that: "A typical poll of more than 2,000 adults in 2006 found just 19 percent trusted journalists to tell the truth - we are the least trusted occupation" (Harcup, 2003: page 3).
Another major notion that has changed in journalism is that it doesn't have to be an occupation at all. Through the use of the internet anybody nowadays can become a journalist. Social networking and micro-blogging sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, have become the new medium for breaking news. One such example was after the death of Michael Jackson, a column from The Daily Mail (Bates, 2009) read:"TMZ.com stole a march on traditional media outlets with its scoop that Jackson had died from a heart attack two hours before it was confirmed by the more 'reputed' sources of The LA Times and Associated Press."This shows that the definition of journalism is expanding.
What used to be a profession, that required training and qualifications, is now open to anybody who has access to the appropriate tools of communication. What we define as 'journalism' seems to be changing; whether or not this is a good or a bad thing remains to be seen.My own personal belief is that the most general, but honest definition of journalism is to gather and distribute truthful, relevant information to citizens. Nothing more; nothing less.
Therefore, whilst the notions of journalism have changed throughout the ages, I believe that the definition of journalism hasn't changed. The base of journalism is as resolute as it has always been. It doesn't matter if the information is trivial, life-changing or from a non-professional journalist- as long as the information is truthful and wanted by somebody; it's journalism's duty to provide.But who is a journalist? There are many ideas of who a journalist is, but like journalism it is hard to define, so let's examine different definitions in order to obtain an idea of what a journalist is.Some argue that you merely have to be paid to publish your material in order to be a journalist, whilst others believe that you have to be trained.
Few argue against the opinion as published in Slate: "who is a journalist? Anybody who wants to be." (Weisberg, 2005).Heather S. Hughes definition of a journalist is:"Journalists have a desire to seek out the truth, and share it with others. They make sacrifices - personal, financial and otherwise - to get the truth because they care that much about reporting it.
The primary concern of journalists is not financial profit; it is telling the truth. That's why readers can trust journalists to report what is happening, no matter who is involved." (Hughes, 2008)What we can gather from these two opinions is that anybody can be a journalist as long as they have the right tools and ethics. But is this strictly true? Can anybody be a deemed a journalist by distributing information? In my opinion I don't think they can. I believe that to be a journalist you have to abide by a certain set of rules, regulations and qualifications. I believe that it is essential to be impartial, and not shape the information around your personal opinions.
In addition, I also believe you have to be able to write in a way that will convey the vital information to the reader quickly, but, more importantly, correctly. For these reasons I don't believe that bloggers such as Perez Hilton are journalists. Although such bloggers are spreading news using journalistic practice, I believe that to be a journalist has to be a professional.For me, being professional and truthful are essential qualities in a journalist.
But also professional and ethical standards need to be upheld overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, in order to provide support to the journalist's readers. It is very important that journalists exercise their own beliefs, but not at the expense of the truth. I personally believe that the characteristics required to be a good journalist is a love of language, a good sense of humour, and an infinite capacity to take criticism.To conclude, I think a sound definition of a journalist is someone who dedicates their life to the people and to enlightening the masses to the truth; it's as simple as that.
To finalise, I feel that a good description that sums up my thoughts, I have to go back to Heather S. Hughes, who says: "Journalists are objective and report both sides, regardless of their personal feelings. They dedicate their lives to helping everyone else live better."
