When I first became interested in journalism in the 9th grade, I was adamant about terminology. It was always "I want to be a journalist" never "I want to be a reporter." In my mind, the word "reporter" was sullied. "Reporter" brings up images of squirrely individuals with an in-your-face attitude and an alcohol dependency. "Journalist" brings to mind an intense interview session, editorial-style writing, a reputable name. Not that any of the above is bad (except for the alcohol dependency) but for me a definite distinction was needed.
In our Newsonomics reading for the week, Doctor called briefly upon the image of the reporter of yesterday, as one who you would not want your child to marry because of the dark and devious road ahead. Maybe that's why such negativity is associated with and towards reporters. I think the old school idea of a reporter is one of the problems for the new era of journalism. People think of reporters as invasive and pushy. Now, the concept of reporter seems to be fading, replaced by commentators who don't even report, they just talk, and people still have negative associations with the media.
Is there any hope of a happy medium? Where reporters and journalists can dig for a story, effectively talk about and present it, and maintain a standing? Will the public ever like us? Do we even want them to?
No comments:
Post a Comment