What is a journalist?

Now that my journalism class is almost over, we were asked to once again blog about what we thought a journalist was and compare that with what we thought at the beginning of the semester to see how our opinions changed after everything we have learned.

However, I don't think my definition of what a journalist is has changed at all since the beginning of the semester. In my first post, I said:

"With each passing day, the media and technology are evolving more and more, making it easier for people to allow their voices to be heard. Because of this, almost everyone has some means of informing the public, just as journalists do. Maybe you aren’t on TV or don’t have an article in a newspaper, but you still have ways to spread information, such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. So as long as that information is both true and ethical, wouldn’t that make you a journalist as well? I believe so."

I still stand by this. Every single person has the opportunity to be a journalist. Of course, there is a difference between being a journalist as your career and being a citizen journalist. In fact, if a professional journalist writes something that isn't quite truthful, or maybe it's not very ethical, does that still make them a journalist? No. Sure, they'll have that title, but they aren't a real journalist. They aren't living up to what that title claims. They are a disgrace to journalism as a whole.
 
Throughout this semester I have learned a lot about principles many journalists live by. However, there are so many exceptions to each of these principles that it is hard to know when it is appropriate to apply each concept. I felt like there were many contradictory messages being presented to us, such as you must remain completely unbiased, but sometimes it's all right to put emotion and yourself into the story. Wait, how is that possible? I felt like almost everything being presented to us was like, "Sometimes it's ok to do this, but sometimes it's not." It all just seemed like suggestions rather than rules.
 
I spent a lot of time thinking about this and why there are so many exceptions to everything and why so many conflicting messages are being presented. I think I finally came up with a conclusion.
 
Journalists don't have rules that they live by. At least they shouldn't. Obviously there are the basics -- be truthful, be ethical -- but other than that, it's unclear. Journalism just takes experience. No one is going to be perfect when they first start. But the more you do it, the more you begin to realize when each of these concepts and principles are acceptable and when it is all right to make exceptions. That is something I don't completely understand now because I haven't had much experience with it yet.
 
The same thing applies for citizen journalists. Most blogs are going to be biased, and that is perfectly acceptable. They won't all be the same format, or have the same writing style, etc. Still journalism? Most definitely, because the circumstance allows for all of these exceptions.
 
I hope this post made sense. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that not only can anyone be a journalist, but there are very few solid rules that journalists should have to follow. Just make sure that it is truthful and ethical, and you're good to go.

The Journalist as a Celebrity

Often times journalists are seen as celebrities rather than reporters. Journalists can become celebrities by covering other celebrities, putting on a certain image that appeals to the public, or by covering a touching story, such as when Anderson Cooper covered Hurricane Katrina, the story that gained him his fame.

So a journalist being well-known isn't that big of a deal, right? Wrong. In fact, it can cause various problems for both the reporter and the public. How?

Let's discuss the reporter first. When a celebrity shows up at a scene, his or her presence can change that scene dramatically. This makes the role of being a celebrity journalist much more difficult because their purpose is to report what is happening naturally in the world without it being contaminated by the presence of a celebrity.

One example of a celebrity journalist is Diane Willis, who was a television news anchor. Many of the stories she covered were designed to enhance her image, even though those were not the stories that she wanted to cover. When she was asked about sports, she was supposed to smile, giggle, and get the answer wrong. Her management made her put on a fake image regardless of what she wanted. Is this ok?

Personally, I don't think it is. As journalists, we are supposed to present the truth to our audience, and acting like someone you are not and covering stories that make you look better is not being completely truthful to your viewers. People want to see real reporters acting like real people, not some made up personality that doesn't exist.

The following is a video of when anchors Clyde Lee and Diane Willis retired, which thoroughly portrays them as the celebrity journalists they were.

Now let's talk about the public. What kind of problems can celebrity journalists cause them?

First of all, the public has no idea whether that reporter is actually credible or just acting like they are. People want to believe that the reporter is genuine, but that is not always the case, such as with Diane Willis, whose image was created for her. Also, people will begin to look at at you as being part of the entertainment medium rather than being reporters presenting real news. Having the appearance of a celebrity journalist, especially when they are interviewing another celebrity, combines the news with entertainment. Is this a problem? Has the focus of news moved too far to the coverage of celebrities and lightweight issues?

I think that this can definitely be a problem. When all reporting suddenly becomes entertainment, people will no longer be informed about the important things going on in the world. However, some entertainment can be ok as long as it is used with judgment and not to excess. This allows people to receive the important information without getting bored.

Another problem occurring today is that celebrities have become more credible with young people as reporters. For example, MTV had celebrities such as Christina Aguilera and Drew Barrymore interview presidential candidates in order to appeal to the younger generation. Reporters that are not well-known are slowly losing the interest of their viewers.

Overall, the journalist as a celebrity is not necessarily a bad thing, but they need to be aware of the problems that it can cause and learn how to handle them properly.