There ain't no news in being good.
- Finley Peter Dunne

In embryo...

This blog started out as an assignment from my Comms:239 professor, Dr. Cressman (what up Cress?!). We were supposed to use it to talk about journalism in the news...changes, scandals, technologies, etc. Now, I'm not sure what it is. I guess it is whatever I want it to be at any given time of the day. It's still developing, still finding it's niche, still in embryo....

News from CNN.com

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Journalists vs. Commentators

With the renewal of Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, and Bill O'Reilly's contracts (see http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/11/olbermann_rewarded_with_new_co.html), I have been thinking.....












We've asked the question over and over again, "What is journalism, and who is a journalist?"

As we've discussed these questions and more we have touched on these guys, and guys like them, regularly. We've talked about sensationalism, bias, and heated "debates." Often we view them as how not to be objective in news.

But, are these guys journalists? Just because we throw them in front of a camera and have them spout off some of today's pressing topics, does that make them journalists? If we do consider them journalists, then are they good? Yes, they have high ratings (okay, maybe not Mr. Olberman), but does this make them good journalists?



We talk often about blogging. More and more reporters are turning to the web to reach their audience. Six-pack Joes with a blog can be called journalists.


But really, are these folks journalists? I would like to suggest that they are not. I would rather call them commentators. Instead of Bill's intro "Number one show in cable news," I think it should say "Number one show in cable commentary." I think MSNBC did right when they took Olberman and Chris Matthews off of post-debate coverage.


What do you guys think? Should we label them journalists or commentators? And if commentators, how do we go about making sure the rest of America sees the distinction?






2 comments:

3P said...

You're a great American.

Yeah, they're definitely commentators, but are commentators journalists? I perosnally don't think that it's such a sacred title, and we should distribute it quite freely. The more journalists, the better.

amanda taylor said...

I wanted to comment on the commentators. And I think you've raised an excellent point. Commenting on journalism is a popular thing (even in Dr. Cressman's class!), but I don't think it should be considered 'journalism'. To me, journalism is reporting the news, not sifting through it. This also answers the question of opinion and editorial writers. Perhaps they are not journalists either, but commentators. Interesting!