I think the crux of this question of defining "what is a journalist" is intention and expectation. That is, the intention of the "journalist" and the expectation of their audience. In the case of Scarborough, I would say his intention is to inform via covering a variety of current political events and news makers. I would also say that the expectation of his audience is to be informed. Conversely, I think Rogan's main goal is to entertain. I also think that the main expectation of his audience is to be entertained. In both cases I don't think that either are purely what I've outlined, there's definitely some bleed into the other category on both their parts.
I find the intention vs expectation line too hard to objectively define. You nailed the gray area when you pose whether the audience expects to be informed vs. entertained. I submit that you can never be purely doing one vs the other. Fox news has infamously admitted in court that they are an entertainment network, but I believe their audience would tell you they are staying informed (even if they get entertainment from it). The daily show runs on comedy central and bills itself as news satire, but its viewers would similarly describe themselves as staying informed. It doesn’t matter to me that one is newsier than the other, but that most programs fall somewhere into this middle ground.
The question of whether we are consuming information vs. entertainment than misses the larger point. We are all affected by the media we consume emotionally and intellectually. We learn things and shape our world view based on who we read and listen to. Whether the content creators are considered journalists or comedians is irrelevant. They are shaping public opinion whether they are breaking news or analyzing someone else’s content.
Joe Rogan is a comedian and a journalist. Joe Scarborough is a journalist and an entertainer. Chris Cillizza is a comedian and a journalist. I like to be informed, and I prefer it in a way that makes it fun to digest.
By writing this, am I a journalist or an analyst? Does it matter? I am shaping your world view just by posing questions that you take the time to read and think about.
The biggest concern I have is the loss of trust we have with information in general. Journalism ethics and standards are important. News programs and papers of old at least had the perception of trying to always have integrity and accuracy of information. I look at twitter and take everything with a heavy grain of salt unless people I know and trust confirm. But trust is eroding by the day.
I agree with you aside from the idea that people's expectation is to be informed. I've never watched Morning Joe, but if I did, my goal (and probably yours) would be to get a different perspective or catch up on events. I just do not think that is most people's expectation these days, especially when it comes to cable news. Many viewers want to be entertained, and are not that concerned if the information they're receiving is accurate.
A nice term is analyst or less nice pundit. Not nice at all … bloviator. Respectfully, I would like to see the term journalist reserved for people who research, interview and do original reporting for a news media platform digital, video, print. It’s the stuff that analysts, pundits and bloviators use to make their observations. I read a lot from the pundits, but have greater regard for what I describe here as journalists. Most earn far less than the pundits, but contribute far more to our society.
In this new world of news, I think your definition of “journalist” is going to be someone in very short supply. I can’t stop wondering what all the analysts are going to do when we’ve run off all the news gatherers because they aren’t profitable enough.
Agree. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the verb “to journal” as “to write what you have done each day, sometimes including your private thoughts, feelings, and goals”. Websters and other dictionary similarly emphasize the personal and private nature of journaling. I suppose opinion writers who choose to publish their private thoughts might earn the description “journalist”, but “analyst” or “pundit” would seem more accurate. There are indeed “bloviators” who misappropriate the term “journalist”. They should be consigned to correct high school English essays for eternity.
As Carl Bernstein has said- I believe that a journalist tries to get to the closest version of the truth - that they are reporting or writing about. I also believe that the difference between a true journalist and a broadcaster or pundit - is the journalist will always admit an error and own the error. Pundits just move on. Thank you
To me the industry is Media. Journalism is a complex set of processes within Media. The Reporter does the job of communicating Info to an audience. The Journalist investigates / samples Facts (similar to a detective) and shares the Results with others. The Analyst processes and compiles the Results contextualizing the Facts and producing rich Info. The Influencer converts Info into Opinion and interacts with an audience.
Scarborough and Rogan (and others like Olbermann / Hannity) are principally Influencers although they do some elements of an Analyst. I see Chris and Taibbi as primarily Analysts with some elements of an Influencers.
What a thoughtful and thought provoking post. I am echoing what others have said, but the line between journalists and entertainers has been blurred so much that it is hard to tell them apart. I do think the ethics of the person reporting the news or acting as a journalist is something that should not be forgotten. We are almost to the point where any question can be put into AI and an answer will be provided, but unless there is content and analysis, I think that answer is worthless.
One of the early studies about teachers mentioned that anyone thought they could be a teacher because they had had at least 12 years in an apprenticeship of observation. I fear that this is the case with journalists. I am old and remember the 15 minutes of Walter Cronkite, but your students have grown up with the 24 hour news cycle that has blurred entertainment and journalism.
I think an American journalist today is absolutely required to relay factual material and as even handedly offer an analysis, provide context and explain the significance of the story. Your journalistic credibility will depend how you park your biases to the side and provide fair and balanced analysis.
It’s also important for them to use good grammar. So it’s not “less calls and less emails” but FEWER calls and FEWER emails.
I don’t see how you can write about what constitutes journalism without discussing the direction right wing media like Fox and Newsmax have gone in reporting the news.
What is it when the facts of a news story are altered to tell a different story than what actually happened like stating an election was rigged or that a different party or person won. Is that just bad journalism or not journalism at all.!?
Trying to define "journalist" reminds me of trying to define "art." When I taught the earth and space sciences at the high school, one of my favorite associates was the "art teacher." We had some very interesting debates regarding what constituted art, and even more to the point, how to assign a grade at the high school level. Fun times to be sure...
Just for fun, I went to the Pulitzer Prize website to see who has lately won this award for "journalism". And I found 15 different categories for awards, such as "Breaking News Reporting", "Local Reporting", "National Reporting", "Investigative Reporting", and so on.
There wasn't a single Pulitzer award to a broadcaster; just newspaper columnists. So I guess the Pulitzer people only consider newspapers a source of journalism.
So, I searched for the MSNBC journalism awards. I saw two names I expected to see: Rachel Maddow and Andrea Mitchell. I saw Joy Reid's name, but she was called an "analyst". Searching on CNN, I found the names Wolf Blitzer and Christiane Amanpour...again no surpise. Chris Wallace won a journalism award when he was at Fox News.
I don't have a point to what I am writing, except that with rare exceptions the people we see on TV are not really considered journalists, but more like "analysts" or "hosts".
I think accuracy needs to be a core part of this discussion. Getting the facts correct matters in journalism -- hence the notion of journalistic integrity. It's not the news if it's just made up, or slanted heavily toward advocacy.
I was a journalist for 17 years. First as a local government reporter for a small newspaper and later as an online editor. I've always seen Joe and Mika as commentators, not journalists. Bill Mahr is a commentator. As a journalist, you go sit down with someone newsworthy to do an interview. This ain't brain surgery. If they had come back with even some B-roll, this would be a different conversation.
Journalists report and tell you why it should matter to you or affect you (analysis). The minute a “journalist” gives a point of view or opinion on policy or anything they’ve jump the line to commentator. The problem is that commentators I no longer labeled as such. We use to matte commentary when it should be taken as such. Joe and Mika are commentators… as is Rachel Maddow and much of Fox News.
They’re all trying to inform.. some with a political bend and some without.
Years ago I worked with David Brinkley. Some of you might remember him. Those of us who worked with him had no idea which party he supported. That’s how it should be.
A journalist is a professional. A professional must devote their main energies to the field in which they practice, adhere to some kind of basic code of ethics and standards, and be covered by a governing body.
A journalist doesn’t have to be platformed by a specific set of entities like a newspaper or TV station.
I think the big question is whether those journalistic standards have changed and who exactly that governing body is. In CPA land, those answers are very clear (yes, FASB).
I started my career in "journalism," at ABC News. I then went to law school (and stopped practicing long ago).
Those two experiences shape my answer.
A journalist is someone who delivers news and analysis (doesn't matter which; op-ed columnists are, in my view, journalists) and - this is crucial - abide by professional standards.
Does someone check information and sources? Does someone test the source of such information for reliability? Does someone exaggerate beyond reasonable limits?
These are all examples of principles that anyone claiming to be a journalist should abide by.
Others, and I don't care if they are on social media, a TV network, or screaming in a park, are polemicists, or maybe simply cranks.
The medium doesn't matter. There are journalists working on their own on social media, and polemicists on mainstream media.
My view is that professional standards and practices matter. A lot.
So does Timothy Snyder in "On Tyranny," in which he writes about how to preserve democratic institutions.
I would hope it would be expected that a5 "journalist" has a duty to check out a variety of credible sources to determine the "facts" of a matter, and to be ready to back check and search out additional info, as a situation develops. The questions i have of all podcasters who spurn corporate media: Do you need corporate media's boots on the ground to get you your clips and updates? On your own, do you have the sources and resources that will enable you to adequately cover and collect info in the moment/ on the ground - how does/ will this work?
In a sense, in today's digital world, we are all journalists. Even people like me writing comments - who knows who might read this in the future? I believe it to be the same concept as all human beings possessing the title of "scientist." There is a part of every person that is a scientist, yet not all humans are "scientists" in practice.
This is where free will comes in. I choose to read Chris based on my shared concept of a journalist. My description fits his description, and after reading him for a year-plus, I have detected no lies or inaccuracies (on a factual basis). It does not matter to me whether I "agree" with the opinion part, because when it comes to Chris' opinion, I know it is well-informed.
We all knew, those of us "connected" in the 1990s as the internet grew, that the net was filled with garbage. There is simply a massive body of information that could never be included in any academic paper, or that contradicts all known facts and science. If these are not valid-enough sources to include in a paper, why would anyone consider them to be accurate? It is as if a massive number of people, college-educated or not, have forgotten that.
I think the crux of this question of defining "what is a journalist" is intention and expectation. That is, the intention of the "journalist" and the expectation of their audience. In the case of Scarborough, I would say his intention is to inform via covering a variety of current political events and news makers. I would also say that the expectation of his audience is to be informed. Conversely, I think Rogan's main goal is to entertain. I also think that the main expectation of his audience is to be entertained. In both cases I don't think that either are purely what I've outlined, there's definitely some bleed into the other category on both their parts.
I find the intention vs expectation line too hard to objectively define. You nailed the gray area when you pose whether the audience expects to be informed vs. entertained. I submit that you can never be purely doing one vs the other. Fox news has infamously admitted in court that they are an entertainment network, but I believe their audience would tell you they are staying informed (even if they get entertainment from it). The daily show runs on comedy central and bills itself as news satire, but its viewers would similarly describe themselves as staying informed. It doesn’t matter to me that one is newsier than the other, but that most programs fall somewhere into this middle ground.
The question of whether we are consuming information vs. entertainment than misses the larger point. We are all affected by the media we consume emotionally and intellectually. We learn things and shape our world view based on who we read and listen to. Whether the content creators are considered journalists or comedians is irrelevant. They are shaping public opinion whether they are breaking news or analyzing someone else’s content.
Joe Rogan is a comedian and a journalist. Joe Scarborough is a journalist and an entertainer. Chris Cillizza is a comedian and a journalist. I like to be informed, and I prefer it in a way that makes it fun to digest.
By writing this, am I a journalist or an analyst? Does it matter? I am shaping your world view just by posing questions that you take the time to read and think about.
The biggest concern I have is the loss of trust we have with information in general. Journalism ethics and standards are important. News programs and papers of old at least had the perception of trying to always have integrity and accuracy of information. I look at twitter and take everything with a heavy grain of salt unless people I know and trust confirm. But trust is eroding by the day.
I agree with you aside from the idea that people's expectation is to be informed. I've never watched Morning Joe, but if I did, my goal (and probably yours) would be to get a different perspective or catch up on events. I just do not think that is most people's expectation these days, especially when it comes to cable news. Many viewers want to be entertained, and are not that concerned if the information they're receiving is accurate.
A nice term is analyst or less nice pundit. Not nice at all … bloviator. Respectfully, I would like to see the term journalist reserved for people who research, interview and do original reporting for a news media platform digital, video, print. It’s the stuff that analysts, pundits and bloviators use to make their observations. I read a lot from the pundits, but have greater regard for what I describe here as journalists. Most earn far less than the pundits, but contribute far more to our society.
In this new world of news, I think your definition of “journalist” is going to be someone in very short supply. I can’t stop wondering what all the analysts are going to do when we’ve run off all the news gatherers because they aren’t profitable enough.
I like the term, news gatherer
Agree. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the verb “to journal” as “to write what you have done each day, sometimes including your private thoughts, feelings, and goals”. Websters and other dictionary similarly emphasize the personal and private nature of journaling. I suppose opinion writers who choose to publish their private thoughts might earn the description “journalist”, but “analyst” or “pundit” would seem more accurate. There are indeed “bloviators” who misappropriate the term “journalist”. They should be consigned to correct high school English essays for eternity.
As Carl Bernstein has said- I believe that a journalist tries to get to the closest version of the truth - that they are reporting or writing about. I also believe that the difference between a true journalist and a broadcaster or pundit - is the journalist will always admit an error and own the error. Pundits just move on. Thank you
Thank you.
To me the industry is Media. Journalism is a complex set of processes within Media. The Reporter does the job of communicating Info to an audience. The Journalist investigates / samples Facts (similar to a detective) and shares the Results with others. The Analyst processes and compiles the Results contextualizing the Facts and producing rich Info. The Influencer converts Info into Opinion and interacts with an audience.
Scarborough and Rogan (and others like Olbermann / Hannity) are principally Influencers although they do some elements of an Analyst. I see Chris and Taibbi as primarily Analysts with some elements of an Influencers.
What a thoughtful and thought provoking post. I am echoing what others have said, but the line between journalists and entertainers has been blurred so much that it is hard to tell them apart. I do think the ethics of the person reporting the news or acting as a journalist is something that should not be forgotten. We are almost to the point where any question can be put into AI and an answer will be provided, but unless there is content and analysis, I think that answer is worthless.
One of the early studies about teachers mentioned that anyone thought they could be a teacher because they had had at least 12 years in an apprenticeship of observation. I fear that this is the case with journalists. I am old and remember the 15 minutes of Walter Cronkite, but your students have grown up with the 24 hour news cycle that has blurred entertainment and journalism.
I think an American journalist today is absolutely required to relay factual material and as even handedly offer an analysis, provide context and explain the significance of the story. Your journalistic credibility will depend how you park your biases to the side and provide fair and balanced analysis.
It’s also important for them to use good grammar. So it’s not “less calls and less emails” but FEWER calls and FEWER emails.
I don’t see how you can write about what constitutes journalism without discussing the direction right wing media like Fox and Newsmax have gone in reporting the news.
What is it when the facts of a news story are altered to tell a different story than what actually happened like stating an election was rigged or that a different party or person won. Is that just bad journalism or not journalism at all.!?
Trying to define "journalist" reminds me of trying to define "art." When I taught the earth and space sciences at the high school, one of my favorite associates was the "art teacher." We had some very interesting debates regarding what constituted art, and even more to the point, how to assign a grade at the high school level. Fun times to be sure...
Or like the old argument about porn v. art. "I know it when I see it!"
Just for fun, I went to the Pulitzer Prize website to see who has lately won this award for "journalism". And I found 15 different categories for awards, such as "Breaking News Reporting", "Local Reporting", "National Reporting", "Investigative Reporting", and so on.
There wasn't a single Pulitzer award to a broadcaster; just newspaper columnists. So I guess the Pulitzer people only consider newspapers a source of journalism.
So, I searched for the MSNBC journalism awards. I saw two names I expected to see: Rachel Maddow and Andrea Mitchell. I saw Joy Reid's name, but she was called an "analyst". Searching on CNN, I found the names Wolf Blitzer and Christiane Amanpour...again no surpise. Chris Wallace won a journalism award when he was at Fox News.
I don't have a point to what I am writing, except that with rare exceptions the people we see on TV are not really considered journalists, but more like "analysts" or "hosts".
I think accuracy needs to be a core part of this discussion. Getting the facts correct matters in journalism -- hence the notion of journalistic integrity. It's not the news if it's just made up, or slanted heavily toward advocacy.
I was a journalist for 17 years. First as a local government reporter for a small newspaper and later as an online editor. I've always seen Joe and Mika as commentators, not journalists. Bill Mahr is a commentator. As a journalist, you go sit down with someone newsworthy to do an interview. This ain't brain surgery. If they had come back with even some B-roll, this would be a different conversation.
Journalists report and tell you why it should matter to you or affect you (analysis). The minute a “journalist” gives a point of view or opinion on policy or anything they’ve jump the line to commentator. The problem is that commentators I no longer labeled as such. We use to matte commentary when it should be taken as such. Joe and Mika are commentators… as is Rachel Maddow and much of Fox News.
They’re all trying to inform.. some with a political bend and some without.
Years ago I worked with David Brinkley. Some of you might remember him. Those of us who worked with him had no idea which party he supported. That’s how it should be.
A journalist is a professional. A professional must devote their main energies to the field in which they practice, adhere to some kind of basic code of ethics and standards, and be covered by a governing body.
A journalist doesn’t have to be platformed by a specific set of entities like a newspaper or TV station.
I think the big question is whether those journalistic standards have changed and who exactly that governing body is. In CPA land, those answers are very clear (yes, FASB).
I started my career in "journalism," at ABC News. I then went to law school (and stopped practicing long ago).
Those two experiences shape my answer.
A journalist is someone who delivers news and analysis (doesn't matter which; op-ed columnists are, in my view, journalists) and - this is crucial - abide by professional standards.
Does someone check information and sources? Does someone test the source of such information for reliability? Does someone exaggerate beyond reasonable limits?
These are all examples of principles that anyone claiming to be a journalist should abide by.
Others, and I don't care if they are on social media, a TV network, or screaming in a park, are polemicists, or maybe simply cranks.
The medium doesn't matter. There are journalists working on their own on social media, and polemicists on mainstream media.
My view is that professional standards and practices matter. A lot.
So does Timothy Snyder in "On Tyranny," in which he writes about how to preserve democratic institutions.
I would hope it would be expected that a5 "journalist" has a duty to check out a variety of credible sources to determine the "facts" of a matter, and to be ready to back check and search out additional info, as a situation develops. The questions i have of all podcasters who spurn corporate media: Do you need corporate media's boots on the ground to get you your clips and updates? On your own, do you have the sources and resources that will enable you to adequately cover and collect info in the moment/ on the ground - how does/ will this work?
In a sense, in today's digital world, we are all journalists. Even people like me writing comments - who knows who might read this in the future? I believe it to be the same concept as all human beings possessing the title of "scientist." There is a part of every person that is a scientist, yet not all humans are "scientists" in practice.
This is where free will comes in. I choose to read Chris based on my shared concept of a journalist. My description fits his description, and after reading him for a year-plus, I have detected no lies or inaccuracies (on a factual basis). It does not matter to me whether I "agree" with the opinion part, because when it comes to Chris' opinion, I know it is well-informed.
We all knew, those of us "connected" in the 1990s as the internet grew, that the net was filled with garbage. There is simply a massive body of information that could never be included in any academic paper, or that contradicts all known facts and science. If these are not valid-enough sources to include in a paper, why would anyone consider them to be accurate? It is as if a massive number of people, college-educated or not, have forgotten that.