NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your opinion of journalists? After all we rely on them for the news that we receive.

I have mixed feelings. I am hoping tobecome a journalist myself but I feel many journalists are more interested in celebrity than the actual world. In my opinion journalists should act like a watchdog on government, making sure nothing dodgy or illegal occurs. Of course this is not always the case.

I also feel that their is an unbased hate or at least dislike of journalists in society and I don't understand why. Maybe because the majority are seen as people just concerned about a story, not the people. It's in this wave that the journalists who sacrificed their lives to change things are forgotten. One example would be a journalist in Argentina during the military takeover (his name escapes me at the moment). The dav after the takeover he published an open letter to the leaders, criticising them and puting down facts against them. The letter was seen by millions including the leader. The day after he was kidnapped, his body never found.

I hope to be a journalist just like this man, telling the truth no matter what the consequences ifI knew that this could change the world for the better. So again I ask you what do you think of journalists?

EDIT: The name of the journalist mentioned above was Rodolfo Walsh

They're okay to me, i think some go on to secret services (but i could be wrong).
They're useful and some of their stories can be pretty funny.

Journalists are the way that most of us get our information about world events, directly or indirectly, so I can't really talk down on them. However, it's frustrating when a journalist's column/piece obviously favors one side of the issue. A teacher of mine once said that a good journalists' political views are unknown to any of their readers, even if their readers have read all of their pieces.

I like some and dislike some. Depends on how they work which in turn depends on what kind of media they work for. It sickens me when they make their stories as sensational as possible even if they have to blow things out of proportion and put a biased emotional spin plus a headline that misrepresents the story on it to do so. On the other hand I admire them when they expose the truth about dishonest secrets like asphalt producers setting up a price fixing cartel, grocery stores putting new expiry dates on old food or cloth brands selling clothes containing illegal chemicals. Sensational journalism is bad while investigative journalism is good.

I have an unnatural hatred of journalists...but this is only due to the allergy.
You see,(though I pray you cannot, for it ain't pretty), my hands swell up rapidly anytime I see a journalist or read a journalistic peice. I have started wearing gloves, but after ripping two pairs in a few close encounters.. well, I am reduced to stuffing my hands in my pockets, looking down, and walking briskly to anyplace I want to go, for fear of making eye contact with a journalist. :(

A LOT of my friends are studying journalism, and I don't have a clue why. Really, most of them don't seem interested in that kind of stuff at all. But I don't have a particular opinion about journalists, mostly they're just people doing their job to me, with some notable exceptions of course.

I personally would like to know where we get the information about the journalists from because for all we know it could be an evil baby killing cult :p

The pen is mightier than the sword.

As for proof, I reference the Danish cartoons...

The world could deal with a few more dead journalists. But as a whole they are a necessary evil, if one wants to keep informed about this world.

I personally would like to know where we get the information about the journalists from because for all we know it could be an evil baby killing cult :p

Great Scott! You're right!
Who reports about the journalists?
Who watches the Watchmen!?

heh, good luck in the field if you really do plan getting into it. I started college wanting to do journalism but it's a very competitive field in which the vast majority fall by the wayside.

As regards the actual topic, journalism is a profession like any other. Do I judge all chemists harshly because the majority are working for pharmaceutical companies that strive to turn a profit rather than actually help people? No, that'd be retarded. Some journalists specialize in celebrity gossip (and the sad thing isn't that there are people who do this type of reporting, it's the people supply a demand for that crap) and some specialize in technology and others in international politics, but I don't really see why any of them should be judged strictly upon the basis of their professional specialty. And I'm also not sure what you're talking about, to be honest. Journalism is, if anything, an overly romanticized profession which is why it's such a common field for college students to want to go into.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

As for proof, I reference the Danish cartoons...

Not entirely sure that showed the power of the pen rather demonstrated the power of freedom of speech legislation

Mixed feelings. Often times the media distorts and spreads rumors. Other times it provides good and useful information. However, a free press is something a modern FREE country cannot do without.

Like anyother job, some are good at it, some are bad. Some give faulty information and care more about the money. Some do not.

Not entirely sure that showed the power of the pen rather demonstrated the power of freedom of speech legislation

Stirred up more trouble faster than a gunshot would...

<snip> ... I am reduced to stuffing my hands in my pockets, looking down, and walking briskly to anyplace I want to go, for fear of making eye contact with a journalist.
MWAAA-HAH-HAAAA! I'm a journalist! And you're a journophobe!

*Sits in front of Bann-ed and stares fixedly at him. Rubs against his ankles, purring. Jumps on lap and kneads claws. Scratches behind ear, expelling invisible journalist-hair-motes. Breathes whiskey-breath in Bann-ed's face.*

Thing is, there are reporters ("Just the facts, ma'am!"); there are some who occasionally write informed comment ("AN American union has set up a research branch in Sydney. The United Gabblers will join a group of predominantly left-wing unions ... "); there are columnists, who take a recognised stand, often write provocatively and frequently sound like NSG posters ("Our dog-whistling PM hit a sour note yesterday with another off-key attack on ..."); and there are sub-editors, who write the headlines and frequently never even see the people whose copy they enhance/cut/rewrite in their quest for grammar, spelling, house style and getting the wretched headline to fit.

Add to that the layout subs, who decide where a story will go on a page and how big the picture and headline font will be, and the artists and photographers, whose professional choices affect how a story will be perceived, and you get a helluva lot of people involved in conveying the one news story -- that is, if the news editor, or the chief of staff, or the editor in chief, has bothered making sure that it gets coverage at all.

Much the same on the electronic media, and add to that the newsreaders, whose facial expressions, tone of voice and dress style can also influence how a story is perceived.

The astonishing thing is that so much news actually does get reported, and that so much of it is done honestly.

Hey, and now we've got all you citizen-journalists to keep an eye on us and run your own take.

Take care, though, there's a high rate of work-related stress ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121701861.html

MWAAA-HAH-HAAAA! I'm a journalist! And you're a journophobe!

*Sits in front of Bann-ed and stares fixedly at her. Rubs against her ankles, purring. Jumps on lap and kneads claws. Scratches behind ear, expelling invisible journalist-hair-motes. Breathes whiskey-breath in Bann-ed's face.*


Whoa. Stop, drop, and roll.

My forum rank thing may have the title of "Miss" in it, but by no means am I female.
This message brought to you by men trying to assert their manliness over a series of tubes. That sounded wrong...

Good luck with your occupation.
Baby killer..:p

Sorry. Wholly unjustified sexist assumption based on your inspired comment in some spammy thread --

Poster: Hey, this guy's really trying to get banned.

Bann-ed: I'm not easy!

*begins writing out lines: Men can be not-easy too. Men can be ...*

Sorry. Wholly unjustified sexist assumption based on your inspired comment in some spammy thread --

Poster: Hey, this guy's really trying to get banned.

Bann-ed: I'm not easy!

*begins writing out lines: Men can be not-easy too. Men can be ...*

I read that quickly and then literally stared at it for 15 seconds before I had any idea what you were referring too.

While it can be said I am occasionally rather slow, it can also be said that I am an equal opportunity jester. No euphemism, pun, or witty(?) meme reference is too high or low for me. Except the ones that would get me banned. 'Cause I'm too sexy for myself.

heh, good luck in the field if you really do plan getting into it. I started college wanting to do journalism but it's a very competitive field in which the vast majority fall by the wayside.

Really? What country are you in? Getting into journalism in the UK is fairly easy, as professions go. Still, things may be a bit tighter post-9/11.


Journalism is, if anything, an overly romanticized profession which is why it's such a common field for college students to want to go into.

I find that a lot of journalists, myself included, drifted into the profession because it seemed like a good idea at the time. In fairness, it is an excellent job, which gives you the opportunity to do all sorts of things that most people never get to do. The pay, stress, and working conditions are all pretty poor though.

Got to go - have to write up yesterday's meeting with the police, then I'm off to cover a crown court case.

I find that a lot of journalists, myself included, drifted into the profession because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Me too. Funny, we all seem to end up on NS the same way, too.

Gods, I hate court reporting.

Me too. Funny, we all seem to end up on NS the same way, too.

Gods, I hate court reporting.

I used to do court reporting, I had abuse hurled at me from time to time along the lines of...

"If you [expletive censored] report this I'll [expletive censored] come find your [expletive censored] [expletive censored] family and [expletive censored] kill you all you [expletive censored]s"

I'd then make the motion of writing even more down.

I think what annoys people is something I'd call front-page journalism, which is often about selling the paper over reporting facts. Most journalists are, in actuality, annoyingly almost holier-than-thou in their 'reporting the facts man' in my experience.

I drifted out of it, often it's a case of filing as many stories as possible rather than being a Tintin sleuth.

I wanted to be a journalist myself. But that’s a long time ago...

As I grew up, I realized that the notion is “free press” is utter bullocks, and that “true” journalists are few and far between. A journalist should be objective, reporting only what he sees. But how often do you see that happen? The sad truth is that when you pick up a given newspaper, you know what’s going to be in there and what slant it’s going to have. I long for the day when I can read a truly objective newspaper, but I don’t think it’s ever going to happen. And don’t get me started on the TV news...

Stirred up more trouble faster than a gunshot would...

Depends on where the shot was at ... but in the end did not really affect any change or have any lasting impact

Maybe it will in time though ...

Gods, I hate court reporting.

Really? I love it. Except waiting for juries to come back... or for witnesses to turn up... or for barristers to stop messing about and get on with it...
Come to think of it, most time spent in court is spent waiting. Oh well, when it comes to sitting down doing nothing for a living, I'm up there with the best of them.

I think what annoys people is something I'd call front-page journalism, which is often about selling the paper over reporting facts. Most journalists are, in actuality, annoyingly almost holier-than-thou in their 'reporting the facts man' in my experience.


My girlfriend writes for a rival paper - a tabloid with a very stereotypically tabloidy style - and she envies the fact that I can just tell it like it is, without embellishing the story with silly phrases.

I respect journalist who report the truth and not sell out because the company would rather make a quick buck by twisting the facts and harping on meaningless celebrity tripe.

I have mixed feelings. Journalism and journalists are a cornerstone of a free society, that's why freedom of the press is a specific in American law.

A real journalist undertakes to inform the public about events without attempting to sway the public's thinking (that's for editors, politicians, ministers, etc.) about those events. A real journalist gets the facts, all of them and doesn't substitute opinion for facts - nor does he/she suppress facts that don't support his/her opinion, i.e. he/she is objective. A real journalist concentrates on real news and leaves celebs and pseudo-celebs to gossip columnists.

The crop of so-called journalists we have today, ignores these things in favor of quick and dirty, sensationalist semi-fiction - light on facts, heavy on drama. They would rather tell you Barbra Streisand's opinion (or the opinion of the current celeb-du-jour) on something Bush (or whoever is in office) did than actually tell you what was done and what the results of the action, really were. These aren't real journalists - they are, unfortunately, what we have.

Hopefully, you have the intelligence, strength and courage to be a real journalist. Good luck.

Depends on where the shot was at ...
Like Archduke Ferdinand?

I have always been interested in journalism, particularly the role of photo-journalist (my father was a photographer and I enjoy photography) but I haven't pursued it, mostly because I'd rather go into another field (archaeology) and I'm studying for that. There are also several things that I feel have corrupted an otherwise noble field, particularly intentional misrepresentation and misinformation, the drive for "easy" profitable news from pursuing celebrities and other trivial affairs, encouraging the culture of ignorance, and poor editing policies of major newspapers that encourage a bland, samey style. Worst though I think is being demanded to partake in whipping up hysteria and in the character attacks against people.

I think that's more the fault of the journalists, however, so much as it is the policies of those who employ them. I couldn't do that work in that envrionment. I couldn't tell people to forget about Gaza and Yangon and worry about Jade's new fitness video and Posh's waistline.

So I went to study what I love most of all, and write in fiction the things that the culture of ignorance has swept under a pile of moronic TV shows about moronic pop-gods.

Those, like Amira Hass, who break with that, have my deepest respect.

What is your opinion of journalists?

[...] In my opinion journalists should act like a watchdog on government, making sure nothing dodgy or illegal occurs. Of course this is not always the case.

I also feel that their is an unbased hate or at least dislike of journalists in society and I don't understand why [...]You just explained why. It's the job of the 4th estate to keep taps on the other three, and keep the general population informed & able to participate in the political system. Unfortunately, as a general rule, they're massive failures on both counts.

Whether or not dislike or hatred of people trying to screw you is justified, is a lovely philosophical question. Whatever the answer may be, the fact is that it is how humans tend to react when they get screwed over.

Really? What country are you in? Getting into journalism in the UK is fairly easy, as professions go. Still, things may be a bit tighter post-9/11.

I'm from the US but I think I may have equivocated some, here. While I agree it isn't actually hard to get into journalism, from the people I've encountered in the field, or in the process of getting into it, it's an extremely hard field to be successful in. This also probably depends on where in the US you live, but simply getting into the field doesn't count for much, imo, you have to be able to expect to do provide at least moderately well for yourself while doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from going into the field. It's a wonderful and necessary thing, but it should be viewed with a healthy dose of reality.

The problem I see with journalists, is many 1st world countries have the best free press money can buy. Journalists are being constantly compromised due to advertisers and sponsors interests.

There are a few hard hitting journos out there like Pilger, or Amira Haas, but they are few and far between.

pretty much scum interested whatever sensationalism and half-truth will sell a story.

for every one 'good' journalist, there are a thousand shit ones who'll disregard the truth, and most other things, so long as it furthers their career

While I agree it isn't actually hard to get into journalism, from the people I've encountered in the field, or in the process of getting into it, it's an extremely hard field to be successful in. This also probably depends on where in the US you live, but simply getting into the field doesn't count for much, imo, you have to be able to expect to do provide at least moderately well for yourself while doing it.


Ah well, as I always tell prospective journalists: If you want good money, get a proper job instead.

The problem I see with journalists, is many 1st world countries have the best free press money can buy. Journalists are being constantly compromised due to advertisers and sponsors interests.

Constantly? Nah. I've been a journalist for six years and I've only been involved in two arguments with the advertising department over this kind of thing. And, both times, those arguments have ended with me telling them: Too bad.

pretty much scum interested whatever sensationalism and half-truth will sell a story.

for every one 'good' journalist, there are a thousand shit ones who'll disregard the truth, and most other things, so long as it furthers their career

Pathetic. For someone who whines about people who 'disregard the truth', you are very quick to invent statistics.

I've had the good fortune to work for several gutsy editors and, for one glorious stretch, an equally gutsy general manager. Having workmates who'll tell you the truth about your work helps keep you honest, too.

I've never had to resign over the treatment of a story I've submitted, though I've refused to do stories I thought exploitative and refused to take part in what I considered selective reporting. The only story I've had flat-out rejected was a light silly-season tale on predictions by local psychics, by an editor who had a bad case of religion and thought them (and me) demonic. I simply didn't care enough to stand up for that one.

I've known one journalist whom I believed to be on the take, five or six show ponies who were too lazy to look below the surface and innumerable massive egos, though, naturally, I'm not like that.;) That's not bad in three decades.

Journalists, even peaceful journalists on quiet provincial papers like the one I work for, do have to be willing to dig their heels in occasionally.

Nonetheless, before someone else does, let me contribute to the stereotype:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist;
Considering what the man will do
Unbrib'd, there's no occasion to.
(Not being male or British, I am, of course, exempt.)

Pathetic. For someone who whines about people who 'disregard the truth', you are very quick to invent statistics.

lol... statistics? more like a turn of phrase.

nice way to twist a quote ;)

I have mixed feelings. I am hoping to become a journalist myself but I feel many journalists are more interested in celebrity than the actual world. In my opinion journalists should act like a watchdog on government, making sure nothing dodgy or illegal occurs. Of course this is not always the case.

Good luck. hope you achieve your dream.

Constantly? Nah. I've been a journalist for six years and I've only been involved in two arguments with the advertising department over this kind of thing. And, both times, those arguments have ended with me telling them: Too bad.

Is that because you know what wont be allowed and self censor? Or do you work for a small publication? They are less compromised.

lol... statistics? more like a turn of phrase.

nice way to twist a quote ;)

Oh. So, when you publish something, you aren't bound by standards of accuracy which good journalists conform to? Standards which mean that an unfortunate turn of phrase can get you sued, jailed, or censured by the Press Complaints Commission? That must be nice for you, though it does somewhat weaken your position on the moral high ground.

Is that because you know what wont be allowed and self censor? Or do you work for a small publication? They are less compromised.

Self censor? Not likely.
You could say 'my' publication is medium-sized. Bigger than a local tabloid, but smaller than a national daily. I'm sure that sponsor-driven bias creeps into quite a few publications, but I'm not convinced that it's worse on larger organisations. Losing a client won't sink a national paper, but it might finish off a tiny local paper on a shoestring budget.