to be credible we must be truthful." - Edward R Murrow
I have just been overcome with the feeling that I have a genius idea.
Not so much as IDEA, but suggestion.
A suggestion that I think should be a mandate.
Listen closely, (I have told another person, and he agrees):
All future journalists, or anyone with any desire to be a journalist should be required to take an INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS course. Not just a weekend seminar, A COURSE.
I have that class in an hour, and I have previously learned about Interpersonal Communications in Journalism in high school. I seriously believe that the future of journalism can be shaped and pushed in a positive direction if everyone that wants a career in journalism takes an Interpersonal Communication course.
Now, I personally believe that everyone at one point or another should take some sort of Interpersonal Communication course, but journalists NEED it.
Journalists need to be able to properly conduct interviews, understand how to relate to others, cultural differences, etc. Journalists are constantly communicating.. the job of a journalist is to communicate. We communicate with EVERYONE. We want people to listen to us. We want to inform others, and with Interpersonal Communication skills..the world of journalism would be a better place.
Journalist hard at work!
(I am going to try to include photos with my blog entries; I am trying not to include a photo just for the sake of having one.)
"Journalism will kill you, but it will keep you alive while you're at it." --Horace Greeley
Journalists need to have photos or video footage to accompany stories. The use of photos and/or videos make the story more interesting, as well as easier to understand. The visual aids help the reader to enjoy the article. The visuals show that what is being reported on is real, it happened. But when it comes to a crime, which photos should or should not be included within an article? The visual aids help the reader to better understand and comprehend, but which photo is necessary?
For PART ONE I am going to post the article that has sparked this idea within my head.
Bloggist? Journalogger? Drawing the line between journalists and bloggers.
I turned on my television and saw Perez Hilton hosting “The Bad Girl’s Club Reunion” on Oxygen. . He then introduces himself as a “celebrity gossip columnist. My jaw dropped and I could not believe what I heard. Hilton of PerezHilton.com writes news about celebrities on his blog and uses digital paint to draw things on celebrity photos. He occasionally posts the link where he found the article and he always inserts his opinion. Ironically, he will always post the link where he obtained the images he defaced, but he is not as concerned with posting the link where obtained his news. Hilton is one of the many bloggers on the Internet claiming to be columnists and citizen journalists. When is blogger considered a journalist?
Most bloggers, like Hilton, obtain news from other sources and then put in their own comments and analysis. I would consider that as someone doing a review of the news and relaying the news to others, which is something that many people do in order to let other know about the news. This is done verbally without the person calling him or herself a columnist, but when Hilton creates a blog, copy and pastes news from a source, and then gives his opinion, he considers himself a columnist? Wouldn’t that make anyone who has ever showed an article to someone else and then given commentary about the article a columnist?
Contemplating between "bloggists" and "journaloggers"