Location: Vienna, Virginia, United States

A graduate of Dartmouth College (2005) and Washington and Lee University School of Law (2010). These are my personal blogs, and the musings expressed on them do not reflect the positions of my employer. They do reflect my readings, thoughts, and aspirations, which I figure is good enough.

Monday, May 30, 2005

I Love Journalism

Sometimes, journalism just takes care of itself so well. Very Darwinian in that regard. Whether it's bad grammar that suggests that Pedro grabbed a fan's crotch, or inane writing that is badly researched, there's often a sublime pleasure in reading bad journalism. Call it schadenfreude, call it sadistic glee. But either way, it's just so damn fun sometimes.

Because I didn't know that you were allowed to print this. Even though it's the New York Post, I feel that the first sentence is a little much.

Perhaps he was going for one image, but the first rule of journalism is of course, there is no journalism.

That's not it.

I mean, the first rule of journalism is "know thy reader."

And if I know the average New York Post reader, they won't get an image of Paul Quantrill, Mike Stanton and Carl Pavano in front of a large bowl of mesclun greens.

Oh no, the image will be far different. . .

Does no one at the New York Post listen to Chris Rock? Or do they just have their heads under rocks?

And one last thing:

(Chris Rock) I prefer syrup! (/Chris Rock)


Blogger Ship Creak said...

So often one finds that the TV channels are clogged with the same material that we turn from the glossies and the tabloids to escape.

True journalism is in the eye of the journalist, is my perception. The art-critic, the dodgy landlord, the insurance fraudster - they can all have their opinions of course, but the first law of interpretation states that for every article, there will be an equal and opposite public outcry.

Journalists beware!

6:59 PM  
Blogger Satchmo said...

Wait, am I an art-critic, a dodgy landlord, or an insurance fraudster?

Your comment is certainly true; any article published for public dissemination is subject to interpretation and criticism.

In fact, one might say that you're not successful unless you are interpreted or criticised; it means people are reading your words.

But I think you do have to admit that often, journalists make it hard on themselves by not fact-checking, and not self-scrutinizing.

In fact, one of the biggest problems today is the tendancy to write an article, not attribute sources, not be careful about slang and colloquialism, and let the editors take care of it. (And I'm not just referring to this whole Newsweek thing)

Especially in journalism, a medium ruled by daily deadlines, authorial intention can easily be turned if the journalist isn't careful, and not by any malicious public.

So I'd say that if the first law is that there is an equal and opposite outcry to each article, then the second law must certainly be:

"Make sure you're writing what you think you're writing"

7:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home