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.

Independence from Faction

One of the largely debated topics in journalism is independence from faction. Why?

The intent of journalism is to inform, not to manipulate. To accomplish this, journalists don't need to be neutral, just independent from what they are covering.

But how are journalists supposed to remain independent? How independent is independent enough? And when are exceptions allowed?

First of all, you should not be a journalist if you don't love your job. This will help you remain independent of monetary influences. But what about other influences? Such as what you are covering? Many famous reporters often included their opinions in their stories, such as Walter Cronkite. Anderson Cooper is also known for getting emotionally involved when he covered Hurricane Katrina. Is that ok?

Personally, I think it depends. Sometimes that added emotion can have large positive effects on the piece, but other times it can come off as biased and insensitive. You just have to be careful. People aren't reading the newspaper to have a million different opinions and emotions thrown in their faces. At the same time, they don't want to be reading something so completely void of emotion that it sounds like a robot. I think in Anderson Cooper's situation, it greatly added to the impact of the story. Although many criticized it, for me it was a breath of fresh air to see that he is a normal human being just like me who has feelings and emotions, and his feelings and emotions at that point in time were representing the feelings and emotions of everyone involved in the tragedy. It was raw, deep, touching emotion. It was real journalism. Completely real and nothing fake.

Here's another example: Linda Greenhouse was a journalist who worked for the New York Times. She attended a protest for "Freedom of Choice" -- on her own free time. When the New York Times found out, they reprimanded her because they didn't want the public to think she was representing the views and opinions of the paper. Was this fair?

This is where many disagree. In my opinion, I don't think what the New York Times did to her was fair. She did it on her own time, and in no way was she saying that those were the views of the New York Times. Journalists have lives too. They have opinions and feelings. They are a part of society. And they should have the same rights as everyone else. People need to realize that what journalists do on their own time is not connected to their jobs. I'm a Mormon. Does that mean I should be reprimanded because me going to church every Sunday shows that those are the views of whatever business I'm working for? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My personal life is completely separate from my life as a journalist. My writing will remain independent of the fact that I'm a Mormon, no matter how devout I am.

Yes, certain things like me being a Mormon could have effects on my work, like not wanting to cover certain stories, or the language used in my writing, etc. While I don't come out and say, "I'm a Mormon and this is what I believe," people might still be able to notice the little differences between me and another journalist just based on factors that I have no control over. But that is what makes each and every journalist unique. That is what makes each person's writing unique -- the beliefs, values, and attributes that makes up each person and their writing. And I believe that is what makes each story stand out. That is what gets the public to keep reading.