It is not really a discipline, in my view, but rather a way, by hook or crook, to scrape together a living, sometimes a very good living.
This so called discipline also has been, through history, a doomsday discipline, often for whatever state in which it has happened to have been allowed to operate freely.
Sometimes journalism, call it pamphleteering in the old days, differed from what I refer to as journalism as a career. There have been some in journalism who have been ideologues and partisans, sometimes opposition voices, whether political religious or economic in content. In that sense, I am not referring to the London Times, and its writers, during the time that it was dominated by the Milner Group. That is ideological propaganda really, not the kind of common or garden journalism I am talking about.
Although the Milner Group's propaganda was its own kind of doomsday machine for the West, that is not the blind, commercial, sensationalistic, journalism to which I refer.
These ideologues and partisans are not really what I am referring to as the modern so called discipline of journalism.
I am referring to journalism as a field in a market capitalist system, or in a socialist or communist system, where one's compensation as a journalist is determined by something other than one's personal views on one's journalistic subjects and one's comments thereon, or by consequences of one's works, although one's personal views can play a role in how these matters are addressed in one's journalism. It is compensation determined either by the market or by the party.
Terms search: Drew Pearson Fallacy, Lorch
No comments:
Post a Comment