The next essay is by Margaret Sullivan, who is a public editor appointed by the NY Times. The essay is titled "Who is a Journalist? A Question With Many Facets, and One Sure Answer", and here she ponders over what makes one a journalist, or who can call oneself a journalist in todays time.
She begins by talking about a certain Ms O'Brien, who wrote to her regarding a correction in an article where she wanted to be called a journalist. This brought up the question of who can call oneself a journalist, and there is a strong legal angle to this, she says; the federal shield law gives legal protection to journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources. Then there is the sense of professional respect shown to people who have broken major news stories.
The author then talks about being a "blogger", and how some people consider that as an insult, and that these matters have become significant, as in case of Glenn Greenwald, who was also involved in leaking some major news stories about the US government. Then she mentions one instance where the journalistic credentials of an established broadcaster came under attack - the flip side of this discussion.
Concluding, Sullivan gives a partial definition of a journalist: one who understands, at a cellular level, and doesn't shy away from, the adversarial relationship between government and press. The writing style is concise, and to the point, with short sentences and without use of any complex adjectives.
It appears to be the requirement for such an essay, where its difficult to be objective and reach a definitive conclusion. The essay ends up highlighting the difficulty in separating out "job titles" due to the rise of the internet - the lines aren't clear cut anymore.
She begins by talking about a certain Ms O'Brien, who wrote to her regarding a correction in an article where she wanted to be called a journalist. This brought up the question of who can call oneself a journalist, and there is a strong legal angle to this, she says; the federal shield law gives legal protection to journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources. Then there is the sense of professional respect shown to people who have broken major news stories.
The author then talks about being a "blogger", and how some people consider that as an insult, and that these matters have become significant, as in case of Glenn Greenwald, who was also involved in leaking some major news stories about the US government. Then she mentions one instance where the journalistic credentials of an established broadcaster came under attack - the flip side of this discussion.
Concluding, Sullivan gives a partial definition of a journalist: one who understands, at a cellular level, and doesn't shy away from, the adversarial relationship between government and press. The writing style is concise, and to the point, with short sentences and without use of any complex adjectives.
It appears to be the requirement for such an essay, where its difficult to be objective and reach a definitive conclusion. The essay ends up highlighting the difficulty in separating out "job titles" due to the rise of the internet - the lines aren't clear cut anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment