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.
I think that a journalist is someone that adheres to a generally accepted set of ethical and professional standards that are recognized by most journalism schools as upholding industry best practices. This includes checking facts, employing standards regarding sources and credibility, and at least trying to maintain a semblance of objectivity regarding pursuit of the truth and presenting that truth to the public. Analysis is allowed, but only in the context of accurately presented facts which also have to be presented in their appropriate context.
I also find the “straight news reporter” to be very nearly useless in the modern political context. Instead of reporting what happened, the “straight reporter” then also prints/reports the dueling statements and press releases of the political parties on the thing that everyone agreed happened, and that leads to confusion and distrust among voters. I am reminded of the Kevin McCarthy ouster, which was often reported with some in the GOP issuing public statements about how it would make them stronger, other in the GOP making background statements about how stupid it was, and Democrats generally staying out of it while pushing the (very true) narrative of the GOP in disarray. Straight reporting would have left out all the statements. They would have reported on how McCarthy was shoved out. Which Members pushed it. How long it had been since the last time it happened. Set the unprecedented nature of the move in its factual historical context. And then stopped there, rather than allowing themselves to be used as platforms for self-serving statements everyone knew to be false, and then anonymous background statements designed to provide political cover.
I think some of the last pure journalists are the investigative journalists like ProPublica and some of the few remaining major print publications, and occasionally a news magazine like 60 Minutes.
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'm an old guy. To me, journalism or news reporting is different than an opinion or editorial. I think a journalist reports the facts of the news and the opinion or editorial writer tells me what they think that piece of news means. The journalist's job isn't, I don't think, to influence my opinion about the story. When I read the LA Times, I expect the stories they publish to give me "just the facts" information. And when I go to the editorial section, I want to see what Robin Abcarian or Sandy Banks or LZ Granderson, etcetera, think about the news I've just read.
People still talk about Walter Cronkite and his final sign off, that's the way it is. To me that's the biggest difference between the two and I actually miss just being given the news when I watch television news.
At the very least, and I think that's one of the biggest problems we have, opinion should be presented as opinion. I love hearing opinions. I listen to and read you, Chris, and I usually agree with you, but I believe I'm listening to your opinion about something and I'm agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion.
I’ll echo many of these thoughtful comments; rather than ask “who is a journalist” or focus on certain individuals (Joe/Mika) who, by ANY definition, are not journalists I am intrigued by the fact that we probably no longer have journalists.
A few years ago, when my frustrations with the zealotry & biases of mainstream media were spiking, I searched for a reasonable benchmark tool. My default- the Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists- led me to the conclusion that we have virtually NO journalism anymore.
As others have said- we have influencers, analysts, opinion generators, etc., but no one who is in compliance with the Society’s own code.
The challenge we have as a community of concerned citizens is how do we effectively & effectively navigate this mess of slander, avoidance & contextual Babel to find facts, honesty and integrity.
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.
I think that a journalist is someone that adheres to a generally accepted set of ethical and professional standards that are recognized by most journalism schools as upholding industry best practices. This includes checking facts, employing standards regarding sources and credibility, and at least trying to maintain a semblance of objectivity regarding pursuit of the truth and presenting that truth to the public. Analysis is allowed, but only in the context of accurately presented facts which also have to be presented in their appropriate context.
I also find the “straight news reporter” to be very nearly useless in the modern political context. Instead of reporting what happened, the “straight reporter” then also prints/reports the dueling statements and press releases of the political parties on the thing that everyone agreed happened, and that leads to confusion and distrust among voters. I am reminded of the Kevin McCarthy ouster, which was often reported with some in the GOP issuing public statements about how it would make them stronger, other in the GOP making background statements about how stupid it was, and Democrats generally staying out of it while pushing the (very true) narrative of the GOP in disarray. Straight reporting would have left out all the statements. They would have reported on how McCarthy was shoved out. Which Members pushed it. How long it had been since the last time it happened. Set the unprecedented nature of the move in its factual historical context. And then stopped there, rather than allowing themselves to be used as platforms for self-serving statements everyone knew to be false, and then anonymous background statements designed to provide political cover.
I think some of the last pure journalists are the investigative journalists like ProPublica and some of the few remaining major print publications, and occasionally a news magazine like 60 Minutes.
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'm an old guy. To me, journalism or news reporting is different than an opinion or editorial. I think a journalist reports the facts of the news and the opinion or editorial writer tells me what they think that piece of news means. The journalist's job isn't, I don't think, to influence my opinion about the story. When I read the LA Times, I expect the stories they publish to give me "just the facts" information. And when I go to the editorial section, I want to see what Robin Abcarian or Sandy Banks or LZ Granderson, etcetera, think about the news I've just read.
People still talk about Walter Cronkite and his final sign off, that's the way it is. To me that's the biggest difference between the two and I actually miss just being given the news when I watch television news.
At the very least, and I think that's one of the biggest problems we have, opinion should be presented as opinion. I love hearing opinions. I listen to and read you, Chris, and I usually agree with you, but I believe I'm listening to your opinion about something and I'm agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion.
Maybe I'm just archaic.
Oh well.
I’ll echo many of these thoughtful comments; rather than ask “who is a journalist” or focus on certain individuals (Joe/Mika) who, by ANY definition, are not journalists I am intrigued by the fact that we probably no longer have journalists.
A few years ago, when my frustrations with the zealotry & biases of mainstream media were spiking, I searched for a reasonable benchmark tool. My default- the Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists- led me to the conclusion that we have virtually NO journalism anymore.
As others have said- we have influencers, analysts, opinion generators, etc., but no one who is in compliance with the Society’s own code.
The challenge we have as a community of concerned citizens is how do we effectively & effectively navigate this mess of slander, avoidance & contextual Babel to find facts, honesty and integrity.