Chris, as a number of your commenters note, it's adherence to professional standards and ethics that are key when it comes to defining what is a "journalist." A "real" journalist does the research, checks the veracity of sources and quotes, and (IMHO) relies on a professional editor to ensure that their sentences and story are clear and convey what is intended. The problem today is that not all "real" journalists are employed by MSM. You are not, as one example. I am not, as a Substack writer (but I have decades of experience as a mainstream reporter and editor). So it's hard for readers to distinguish, when they're getting news and information from so many sources, who is "real" and trustworthy, and who is not. I tend to trust the NYT but am also learning to read more discerningly. Great question; THANKS.
To me, a journalist is someone to documents and reports on the truth about what is happening in the world. I don’t see columnists as journalists in that sense. They are more interpreters and/or educators. Some, like Joe Rogan and TMZ, are entertainment vehicles.
What a profession is, its essential purpose/function and mode cannot be left to a poll or consensus. Your attempt to amuse (or placate) your audience should be transparent to all intelligent individuals. What is journalism? To use a famous Dragnet quote: “Just the facts, ma'am.” “Who, what, where and why” are the essential questions that any good journalist should attempt to honestly answer. If you want to offer your opinion, you’re not a journalist.
What about placing those facts into context? Such as, "the last time this happened was XXXX, and resulted in YYYYYY"? Facts without context are often meaningless, as few people know what precedents exist, or what the effects were. Reporting on a conflict between two countries, without giving the historical context -- often, "the why" -- isn't a complete picture. Explaining what happened in a similar previous situation also helps people decide for themselves what the meaning of an event actually are.
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but what's most important to me is that "journalist" is a term we can all define and debate, just like the term "artist," as someone wrote -- but one that should never exist as a distinct legal category. In other words, the First Amendment protects ALL of us, whether or not we or others consider ourselves journalists. On any day, any of us can get up, decide to report on something or publish an opinion, online, on social media, in audio, video, in print, or in other media -- and we'll have all the protections afforded by the Constitution.
I've always feared the danger of laws emerging to only "protect" free expression or freedom of the press for authorized or approved "journalists"--which means the government has to "decide" who to label as a journalist, which instantly swings the door into state-controlled media. It's a fast pivot to destruction. Unlike "doctor" or "lawyer," it's vital that a "journalist" does not require any credential or government licensure to do their job from day one.
As long as government stays out of whether or not someone is a journalist -- and I mean, stays out 100 percent -- then I'm not too concerned. A blogger is a journalist, to the extent bloggers still exist, a Tik Tok creator who does "news" stories is a journalist (I certainly think Dave Jorgenson of the Washington Post is a journalist, after all), and so on. Someone who has opinions and does analyses is a journalist, who might say they do "reported analysis." Someone who reports on a topic factually with no analysis ("here's a new experiment underway in the Arctic!") is a journalist, too.
Uhhh... No. First of all, in the modern world, almost everyone publishes some kind of opinion online in some format. That doesn't make them a journalist. There needs to be some basic standard. You can't have people being questioned by police on some criminal matter, and claiming they are a journalist because they have a tiktok channel "reporting" on makeup trends, or the best kind of dried ramen soup, so they have a right to protect their sources. It would render obstruction of justice meaningless as a crime.
Marc Rosenberg's comment is a dagger in my heart. I wish I could highlight the news stories my coworkers any I broke during my eight years working in TV news. But we did it in Jackson, MS, Santo Domingo Pueblo, NM, Raleigh, NC, and up and down the Mainline in SE PA. I hated it when I was sent to get weather video because producers wanted to show shutins what it was like outside. But that didn't stop us from doing important stories on topics like zeri/zeroscaping, dog psychology (super informative, I kid you not), and chasing ne'er do wells at the sally ports and court houses.
I dissent from the notion that "60 Minutes" is an example of good journalism. When I was teaching a college media course I'd bring in a fresh episode to dissect and it was always clear thereh was an agenda. There was a good guy and a bad guy unless it was just a feature profile. The reporter was always on the side of right.
When I was in law school at Boston University I was one of the students interviewed for a story on BU's controversial president, John Silber. I was appalled when it appeared, as it made him out to be a feisty academic. Years later they did another story about him -- even reusing some footage from the earlier story -- only now he was the bad guy involved in financial irregularities, and the earlier accolades weren't even acknowledged.
Unsurprisingly, I am going to go ahead and disagree with you. I said it was "occasionally" journalism when they are doing investigative journalism. I would argue, that quite often, investigative journalism does have a clear villain. Find the guy who is responsible for human trafficking, or dumping toxic waste, or the whistleblower who broke the big tobacco memos outlining that they new nicotine was harmful and addictive was absolutely journalism. So was exposing pill mills and Social Security disability fraud in one county in West Virginia. Plenty of it is just a celebrity or political profile, or occasionally pure fluff. Some of it is more of a mini-documentary about a subject, like the existence of the international seed bank or the Webb Space Telescope. All of that is actually journalism, but the investigative stuff is the purest form. Uncovering malfeasance and criminality definitely has "an angle", but exposing those things is not something where a journalist would be expected to pretend it is neutral.
This is as much about this column as it is about your column about going back to church. It seems to me that we are in a time of new-definitions. I am a pastor. I seek weekly to do the hard work of helping people find meaning, purpose for their lives. As a Christian pastor, I do that through the way of Jesus, which say is not exclusive but experiential. That is what I have found to be true.
Like you, I did the hard work of learning my craft. An undergraduate degree in religion, a masters and then a doctorate. In January I will have been doing this for 40 years!
But now...
Now I see churches popping up being led by people who have had a bible course. I get calls from friends who have been asked to do a wedding and want to know what to do?
Is there a sense of sour grapes here? Well, yes!
But the other side is when I get sick I don't want someone who has see every episode of Grey's Anatomy! If I have to go to court I want someone who understands the intricacies of the law.
When I read a journalist, I want to know they know what they are talking about, but also how they know what they are talking about. I may not agree (I don't always with you!) but I appreciate the expertise. That is why for many years I subscribed to the WSJ--for the wonderful reporting and writing.
Just because I want to do something doesn't mean I should! We need experts, people who know what they are doing, talking about and struggle to get it right.
I recently read a long piece, I think in WAPO about the young man who did the mass shooting in Georgia. That was journalism. She dealt almost 100% with the facts. Reading that piece it must have been hard for the writer to go into detail about how bad the mental health treatment in this country is.
That is true journalism and there are a lot of those out there
I think sometimes it is hard not to cross that line when something is so abominable crossing the line is almost necessary Maybe the best example is Edward R Murrow taking McCarthy to task
I think I know true journalism when I see. I think it is easier to see than define
There are true journalists in the MSM that I feel are really practicing journalism, Haberman, Woodward, of course Bernstein, Karl, Frum you and others
I like you because you try to stay above the fray and be as objective as you can. You’re also an analyst
One last one who is now at 50 years writing(a lot of good tributes written about him,) and one of your mentors, George Will. By the way do you ever talk with him
I also loved Charles Krautheimer, who might not have been a true journalist. I do miss him
Journalist = Woodward and Bernstein. Uncover vital information, stay on the story relentlessly, write stories without regard to position or power. Can you imagine those two sane-washing Trump and treating him indulgently ("The 85 wacky things that Trump said yesterday.........") rather than an existential threat to our democracy.
Walter Cronkite gave you the facts as he knew them to be. If you didn't like what he told you, too bad. It's like sports: if your team loses, you don't like that "news". Joe S and Joe R are entertainers first and foremost because if the audience is not entertained, they are outta here. Secondly they are opinion shapers and influencers. Fox "news" is strictly in the entertainment business. We learned that when they lost viewers when they declared AZ to Biden in 2020. They made a business decision based on money and the viewers returned when they started hearing what they wanted to hear (ie, not news, but entertainment). CNN & MSNBC are in the same boat, but haven't taken on quite as much water. Unfortunately this is the world we now live in where facts and science have taken a back seat to entertainment. All in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
A journalist checks it all before sacrificing their own integrity. I believe you can still find this in the Maddow’s, Wallace’s & O’Donnell’s of the newsroom.
Journalists for much of our history were hard scramble men and women without elite educations (maybe not even college degrees). They did the work. Today the majority of NYT journalists went to the same ivy league or elite colleges. Many went to J schools. Is there any wonder that the media is so disconnected from the Avg reader? Stop hiring J school graduates and hire people that understand readers and not the latest social justice warrior DEI mantra.
Uhhh, that is what social media "journalists" do. I think I prefer someone who has been taught journalist standards, how to fact check sources, when to allow on background comments, and when attribution is necessary, how to process FOIA requests, what is ethical in running down a lead, how and when to solicit reactions from the subject of a story, and a host of other things that are necessary to presenting an accurate story. Also, I truly appreciate having people who actually know how to write a coherent sentence, and employ a vocabulary that stretches beyond the 6th grade. The reason we don't have those "hard-scrabble" reporters anymore, is because we have very few local outlets, and the ones we do have don't have the funding to do in depth investigative reporting and original writing. We don't have local papers covering city council meetings and honing their craft early, and then moving up to larger papers and outlets, before eventually coming to the major newspapers and news outlets with a depth and breadth of experience that supports continued high-quality work. Why some people think that an education in a specific topic, and seeking expertise in a profession is a bad thing is just beyond me. The average reader doesn't need to be told by the average Joe what is going on in the world. That is what the barstool or social media is for. Having well versed experts explain things to them is far more useful for people who actually want to improve their understanding of the world, and not just have their own views echoed back at them in a comfortable amen chorus.
Chris, as a number of your commenters note, it's adherence to professional standards and ethics that are key when it comes to defining what is a "journalist." A "real" journalist does the research, checks the veracity of sources and quotes, and (IMHO) relies on a professional editor to ensure that their sentences and story are clear and convey what is intended. The problem today is that not all "real" journalists are employed by MSM. You are not, as one example. I am not, as a Substack writer (but I have decades of experience as a mainstream reporter and editor). So it's hard for readers to distinguish, when they're getting news and information from so many sources, who is "real" and trustworthy, and who is not. I tend to trust the NYT but am also learning to read more discerningly. Great question; THANKS.
To me, a journalist is someone to documents and reports on the truth about what is happening in the world. I don’t see columnists as journalists in that sense. They are more interpreters and/or educators. Some, like Joe Rogan and TMZ, are entertainment vehicles.
What a profession is, its essential purpose/function and mode cannot be left to a poll or consensus. Your attempt to amuse (or placate) your audience should be transparent to all intelligent individuals. What is journalism? To use a famous Dragnet quote: “Just the facts, ma'am.” “Who, what, where and why” are the essential questions that any good journalist should attempt to honestly answer. If you want to offer your opinion, you’re not a journalist.
What about placing those facts into context? Such as, "the last time this happened was XXXX, and resulted in YYYYYY"? Facts without context are often meaningless, as few people know what precedents exist, or what the effects were. Reporting on a conflict between two countries, without giving the historical context -- often, "the why" -- isn't a complete picture. Explaining what happened in a similar previous situation also helps people decide for themselves what the meaning of an event actually are.
I agree
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but what's most important to me is that "journalist" is a term we can all define and debate, just like the term "artist," as someone wrote -- but one that should never exist as a distinct legal category. In other words, the First Amendment protects ALL of us, whether or not we or others consider ourselves journalists. On any day, any of us can get up, decide to report on something or publish an opinion, online, on social media, in audio, video, in print, or in other media -- and we'll have all the protections afforded by the Constitution.
I've always feared the danger of laws emerging to only "protect" free expression or freedom of the press for authorized or approved "journalists"--which means the government has to "decide" who to label as a journalist, which instantly swings the door into state-controlled media. It's a fast pivot to destruction. Unlike "doctor" or "lawyer," it's vital that a "journalist" does not require any credential or government licensure to do their job from day one.
As long as government stays out of whether or not someone is a journalist -- and I mean, stays out 100 percent -- then I'm not too concerned. A blogger is a journalist, to the extent bloggers still exist, a Tik Tok creator who does "news" stories is a journalist (I certainly think Dave Jorgenson of the Washington Post is a journalist, after all), and so on. Someone who has opinions and does analyses is a journalist, who might say they do "reported analysis." Someone who reports on a topic factually with no analysis ("here's a new experiment underway in the Arctic!") is a journalist, too.
Uhhh... No. First of all, in the modern world, almost everyone publishes some kind of opinion online in some format. That doesn't make them a journalist. There needs to be some basic standard. You can't have people being questioned by police on some criminal matter, and claiming they are a journalist because they have a tiktok channel "reporting" on makeup trends, or the best kind of dried ramen soup, so they have a right to protect their sources. It would render obstruction of justice meaningless as a crime.
Marc Rosenberg's comment is a dagger in my heart. I wish I could highlight the news stories my coworkers any I broke during my eight years working in TV news. But we did it in Jackson, MS, Santo Domingo Pueblo, NM, Raleigh, NC, and up and down the Mainline in SE PA. I hated it when I was sent to get weather video because producers wanted to show shutins what it was like outside. But that didn't stop us from doing important stories on topics like zeri/zeroscaping, dog psychology (super informative, I kid you not), and chasing ne'er do wells at the sally ports and court houses.
I dissent from the notion that "60 Minutes" is an example of good journalism. When I was teaching a college media course I'd bring in a fresh episode to dissect and it was always clear thereh was an agenda. There was a good guy and a bad guy unless it was just a feature profile. The reporter was always on the side of right.
When I was in law school at Boston University I was one of the students interviewed for a story on BU's controversial president, John Silber. I was appalled when it appeared, as it made him out to be a feisty academic. Years later they did another story about him -- even reusing some footage from the earlier story -- only now he was the bad guy involved in financial irregularities, and the earlier accolades weren't even acknowledged.
"60 Minutes" is infotainment.
Unsurprisingly, I am going to go ahead and disagree with you. I said it was "occasionally" journalism when they are doing investigative journalism. I would argue, that quite often, investigative journalism does have a clear villain. Find the guy who is responsible for human trafficking, or dumping toxic waste, or the whistleblower who broke the big tobacco memos outlining that they new nicotine was harmful and addictive was absolutely journalism. So was exposing pill mills and Social Security disability fraud in one county in West Virginia. Plenty of it is just a celebrity or political profile, or occasionally pure fluff. Some of it is more of a mini-documentary about a subject, like the existence of the international seed bank or the Webb Space Telescope. All of that is actually journalism, but the investigative stuff is the purest form. Uncovering malfeasance and criminality definitely has "an angle", but exposing those things is not something where a journalist would be expected to pretend it is neutral.
John Scott - thank you. You nailed it concise and all that needed to be said!
Matthew Childers's defined "journalist" in the most succinct way and perfect way!
Chris,
This is as much about this column as it is about your column about going back to church. It seems to me that we are in a time of new-definitions. I am a pastor. I seek weekly to do the hard work of helping people find meaning, purpose for their lives. As a Christian pastor, I do that through the way of Jesus, which say is not exclusive but experiential. That is what I have found to be true.
Like you, I did the hard work of learning my craft. An undergraduate degree in religion, a masters and then a doctorate. In January I will have been doing this for 40 years!
But now...
Now I see churches popping up being led by people who have had a bible course. I get calls from friends who have been asked to do a wedding and want to know what to do?
Is there a sense of sour grapes here? Well, yes!
But the other side is when I get sick I don't want someone who has see every episode of Grey's Anatomy! If I have to go to court I want someone who understands the intricacies of the law.
When I read a journalist, I want to know they know what they are talking about, but also how they know what they are talking about. I may not agree (I don't always with you!) but I appreciate the expertise. That is why for many years I subscribed to the WSJ--for the wonderful reporting and writing.
Just because I want to do something doesn't mean I should! We need experts, people who know what they are doing, talking about and struggle to get it right.
Thanks for letting me vent!
A word addition about the mass shooter in Georgia. It must have been hard not to go into detail
Chris excellent stuff
I recently read a long piece, I think in WAPO about the young man who did the mass shooting in Georgia. That was journalism. She dealt almost 100% with the facts. Reading that piece it must have been hard for the writer to go into detail about how bad the mental health treatment in this country is.
That is true journalism and there are a lot of those out there
I think sometimes it is hard not to cross that line when something is so abominable crossing the line is almost necessary Maybe the best example is Edward R Murrow taking McCarthy to task
I think I know true journalism when I see. I think it is easier to see than define
There are true journalists in the MSM that I feel are really practicing journalism, Haberman, Woodward, of course Bernstein, Karl, Frum you and others
I like you because you try to stay above the fray and be as objective as you can. You’re also an analyst
One last one who is now at 50 years writing(a lot of good tributes written about him,) and one of your mentors, George Will. By the way do you ever talk with him
I also loved Charles Krautheimer, who might not have been a true journalist. I do miss him
Journalist = Woodward and Bernstein. Uncover vital information, stay on the story relentlessly, write stories without regard to position or power. Can you imagine those two sane-washing Trump and treating him indulgently ("The 85 wacky things that Trump said yesterday.........") rather than an existential threat to our democracy.
Walter Cronkite gave you the facts as he knew them to be. If you didn't like what he told you, too bad. It's like sports: if your team loses, you don't like that "news". Joe S and Joe R are entertainers first and foremost because if the audience is not entertained, they are outta here. Secondly they are opinion shapers and influencers. Fox "news" is strictly in the entertainment business. We learned that when they lost viewers when they declared AZ to Biden in 2020. They made a business decision based on money and the viewers returned when they started hearing what they wanted to hear (ie, not news, but entertainment). CNN & MSNBC are in the same boat, but haven't taken on quite as much water. Unfortunately this is the world we now live in where facts and science have taken a back seat to entertainment. All in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
A journalist checks it all before sacrificing their own integrity. I believe you can still find this in the Maddow’s, Wallace’s & O’Donnell’s of the newsroom.
Journalists for much of our history were hard scramble men and women without elite educations (maybe not even college degrees). They did the work. Today the majority of NYT journalists went to the same ivy league or elite colleges. Many went to J schools. Is there any wonder that the media is so disconnected from the Avg reader? Stop hiring J school graduates and hire people that understand readers and not the latest social justice warrior DEI mantra.
Uhhh, that is what social media "journalists" do. I think I prefer someone who has been taught journalist standards, how to fact check sources, when to allow on background comments, and when attribution is necessary, how to process FOIA requests, what is ethical in running down a lead, how and when to solicit reactions from the subject of a story, and a host of other things that are necessary to presenting an accurate story. Also, I truly appreciate having people who actually know how to write a coherent sentence, and employ a vocabulary that stretches beyond the 6th grade. The reason we don't have those "hard-scrabble" reporters anymore, is because we have very few local outlets, and the ones we do have don't have the funding to do in depth investigative reporting and original writing. We don't have local papers covering city council meetings and honing their craft early, and then moving up to larger papers and outlets, before eventually coming to the major newspapers and news outlets with a depth and breadth of experience that supports continued high-quality work. Why some people think that an education in a specific topic, and seeking expertise in a profession is a bad thing is just beyond me. The average reader doesn't need to be told by the average Joe what is going on in the world. That is what the barstool or social media is for. Having well versed experts explain things to them is far more useful for people who actually want to improve their understanding of the world, and not just have their own views echoed back at them in a comfortable amen chorus.