I'd be interested to see a couple statistics - even general ones - heck, even some informed guesses, if you're got 'em - about the ratio of various stories to each other in a mid-sized paper such as yours. What's the ratio of editorial to non-editorial, the ratio of "human interest" stories to more straightforward event-based "reporting"? Does the ratio change with the age group targeted?
I agree that I've used the term "journalists" in too broad a sense. I'd like to narrow my scope, if I may, to "journalists who pursue an interesting story at the expense of most other things", and postulate that journalists are biased - against their will even - by capitalistic forces to behave in mostly this way. This I think is the middle ground we're both after.
I find it interesting that modern times have apparently created a two-pronged attack on journalistic integrity - one prong being the force of mass marketing, the other prong being the erosion of the line between "journalist" and "loudmouth" that blogging has spearheaded.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 07:12 am (UTC)I agree that I've used the term "journalists" in too broad a sense. I'd like to narrow my scope, if I may, to "journalists who pursue an interesting story at the expense of most other things", and postulate that journalists are biased - against their will even - by capitalistic forces to behave in mostly this way. This I think is the middle ground we're both after.
I find it interesting that modern times have apparently created a two-pronged attack on journalistic integrity - one prong being the force of mass marketing, the other prong being the erosion of the line between "journalist" and "loudmouth" that blogging has spearheaded.
Is there hope for journalism as a craft?