Here's one of the themes of bloggers v. journos that has been making the rounds among the bloggers themselves and has now been publicized by the WSJ's John Fund (link in title): who are the bloggers?
Bloggers are, by and large, not journalists nor journalistic in the average understanding. Instead, they come to the blogosphere with vastly different skills and life experiences than journalists themselves, and there are no necessary qualifications for journalists. Powerline.com wrote about this in August. The Powerliners are attorneys, as are many other bloggers, The Monk included. Attorneys need to be able to deconstruct an argument, construct one that is logical and persuasive, and support their positions with research and analysis. A journalist needs no such skills to excel.
The Monk was a journalist in college. Rank amateur? No. I wrote for one of the most nationally lauded college newspapers in the country; I managed two different departments and wrote for all four content sections: Editorial, Sports, News, Lifestyles. My editors above me, my contemporaries and my subordinates have become reporters for national and regional newspapers. I covered the biggest stories in UVa sports during my tenure and I did it well. I wrote about national and international issues, established sources and had prominent people returning my phone-calls like any "professional" journalist -- from the commissioners of the Big Ten and SEC to UVa's head basketball coach to leading sports commentators. All that time, I was an 18-21 year old kid in a college that has no "journalism" program and I was balancing my coursework with my 40-60 hours per week that I dedicated to my work for the newspaper.
So if you really think that there is anything special that Dan Rather or Mike Wallace or Walter Cronkite does in preparing a story that a 20-something with no college courseload couldn't handle, think again.
No comments:
Post a Comment