Talk:Journalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 22 December 2012 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon
 

US bias to this article[edit]

I think a better title for this article would be "US Journalism". unsigned comment added by She 25 (talkcontribs) 07:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cadets[edit]

I don't know whether or not this is just used in Australia, but "cadet" is very commonly used for describing somesort of new journalist... Or something... Someone want to elaborate?

I've heard the expression "cub reporter" in the USA. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Three major international nautical companies hired a total of 26 Deck Cadets from the Univers ty of Cebu, Class of 2006-2007, October graduates.

Wartsila Land and Sea Academy hired 24 Deck Cadets as fresh additions to their team. The cadets are now undergoing Chart Training Seminar, Awareness Seminar and a talk on AIDS. A training seminar on Deck Watch-Keeping is also being arranged for those who made the cut.

Wartsila Land and Sea Academy provides extensive programs covering operation, maintenance and safety issues for their clientele’s marine personnel. Their apprentices will receive a monthly compensation in US dollars upon the start of their embarkation.

The company, led by Capt. Helge Oliversen formerly with the NSA Philippines for almost six years, is also scheduled to visit the University of Cebu - Maritime Education and Training Center (UC-METC) on the third week of November to add 10 more cadets to the list.? The selected men will be trained in Subic Bay, where the company holds office.

Another company - Phoenix Maritime - which is managed by the Japanese, visited the UC- Maritime Education and Training Center (METC) and picked a cadet for shipboard training. Deck Cadet Erlan Lanos will join the company by March 2007.

Finally, Wallem Maritime Services, a firm ran by Filipinos, Greeks and Norwegians, also dropped by the campus and selected Deck Cadet Jemape Bacolod as a welcome addition to their seafaring staff. He will join the company for his apprenticeship on March 2007.

When asked about the partiality of the hiring towards the Marine Transportation cadets, Mr. Robert Maluya, UC-METC Shipboard Training Officer says, "It’s probably because Deck cadets are more versatile on board."

Added together with the 80 hired cadets featured in the UC Watch November 2006 issue (1st edition), these 26 cadets add up to a 15-16 percent mark of 2006-2007 graduates who now have definite employment. However, this percentage excludes the NSA, special and academic scholars as well as those who applied for employment in the local seas. Had the domestic companies’ shipboard training offerings been included, there could have been a higher rate of the employment of the cadets.

Mr. Maluya was quick to add that a majority of the cadets prefer to board international vessels, citing the compensation in American dollars as a major incentive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by She 25 (talkcontribs) 08:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Parameters vs. values[edit]

"The main activity of journalism is the reporting of events by stating the journalistic parameters of who, what, when, where, and how and commenting on the significance of the event." Shouldn't that be "stating the values of the journalistic parameters"? Prawn 15:57 May 11, 2003 (UTC)


The main activity of journalism is the reporting of events by stating the journalistic parameters of who, what, why, when, where, and how and commenting on the significance of the event. This is the cornerstone of all journalistic stories, be it something of national importance or a local club activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiggy57 (talkcontribs) 13:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Education[edit]

I'd like to see education oriented information on the subject, such as prominent universities in the area, etc. Kylratix 22Jul03

I think there is an article on "journalism school."

Maurreen 19:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Fluffy went home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.128.99 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing, occupation[edit]

Journalism is the practice of writing about current events. Those who practice journalism are known as journalists. Journalism is often referred to as the "first draft of history."

My comments on the above: the practice of writing is too narrow - add: in the mass media, and make mass media an entry word. some people write a diary with the same pretext. journalists should have a more meaningful definition too, from DOT or similar resources. Interestingly enough journalist does not exist as an entry in DOT. See editor, or author or writer instead, such as in this: quote from http://www.occupationalinfo.org/13/132017014.html CODE: 132.017-014Buy the DOT:Download/Diskettes/CD-ROM TITLE(s): EDITOR, NEWSPAPER (print. & pub.) alternate titles: editor-in-chief, newspaper Formulates editorial policy and directs operation of newspaper: Confers with editorial policy committee and heads of production, advertising, and circulation departments to develop editorial and operating procedures and negotiate decisions affecting publication. Appoints editorial heads and supervises work of their departments in accordance with newspaper policy. Writes leading or policy editorials or notifies editorial department head of position to be taken on specific public issues. Reviews financial reports and takes appropriate action with respect to costs and revenues. Represents publication at professional and community functions. In smaller establishments may perform duties of one or more subordinate editors and direct activities of advertising, circulation, or production personnel. GOE: 11.08.01 STRENGTH: S GED: R6 M3 L6 SVP: 9 DLU: 77 apogr I wonder whether one could include similar links where the original definiton seems to be lacking depth. Apogr 09:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Full Of Crappola[edit]

Blogging[edit]

Renamed section from "public journalism," which has a different meaning in the industry. Maurreen 19:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted section on blogging; it usually isn't considered journalism.
In blogging, a writer, often unaffiliated with a professional news organization, writes frequent dispatches on niche topics, posted online. There is dispute as to whether blogging in general is journalism. Many bloggers do little or no original reporting, but just compile and comment on others' work.
Maurreen 08:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection of sources[edit]

Maybe a note about the recent case in Rhode Island in which a reporter has been punished for protecting his source?--Dupes 18:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a bunch going on in that area lately. It's worth writing about, but probably not by me. For one thing, confidentiality has disproportionate amount of coverage in Wikipedia, in my view. In the journalism category or one of its subcategories, you'll probably see what I mean. Maurreen 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New section[edit]

Whoever added "Objectivity and Journalism in the United States" did ag ood job. Maurreen 04:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Journalism as "pursuit of the truth"[edit]

It is sometimes defined more broadly as the pursuit of the truth.

By this definition, journalism would include science, philosophy, theology, and anything else where a person seeks "the truth". This sounds like a pep-talk given at a journalism school, not a real definition of journalism. If this is to be included it needs to be in context and we need to say who made this statement. AdamRetchless 17:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) Let's not forget political activism or social crusading. Too many journalists these days view themselves as social crusaders and so the factual news takes a second seat to the 'agenda' of the particular crusading journalist. Perhaps therefore 'journalism' should be reclassified as a form of fiction. Sean7phil (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear! Truth and Journalism are not the same, despite idealism. --96.244.244.244 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian category[edit]

I've created Category:Wikipedian journalists. Maurreen 06:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Civic journalism[edit]

Why was civic journalism removed? Maurreen 16:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because Journalism has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with public opinion and sales. --96.244.244.244 (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Witness POV[edit]

I've created Witness POV to enable the inclusion of journalist POV history analysis , and in the first instance that of Edgar Ansel Mowrer . A comparison between his writing and that to be found in the encyclopedic NPOV articles hopefully will justify the reporting of the reporter . His writing being as close to the original as teacher allows .Flamekeeper 22:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

New WikiProject needs editors[edit]

Anyone interested in journalism is invited to Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism. Maurreen 4 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Someone has proposed Category:Journalism and a few related categories for deletion or merging. Maurreen (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

publication[edit]

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's already on the web, it's already published. I take it what you are really asking is if people would like to jump through hoops to be certified through a process that doesn't actually exist yet? Why don't you come back when it's real? DreamGuy 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
i haven't said the publication system is in place and fully operational. i am asking would you like to not otherwise. -- Zondor 03:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

the First Amendment[edit]

does anyone think that there should be some sort of link or at least a reference to the First Amendment? i think it's kind of important to the press, and although i don't know much about it, it should at least be mentioned.

No biggie; it falls under Freedom of the press, which is linked. Maurreen 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

local/national/international news[edit]

Is there a good link or article on the terms "local news" vs "national news" vs "international news", etc? I'm not asking about distribution, but news coverage. Thanks. Simon12 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian Page[edit]

G'day everyone. I just started a page about Australian Journalism. It isn't anywhere near finished, but please feel free to contribute. Cheers. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Role of Journalism section[edit]

It says "In the 1920's, as modern journalism was just taking form, writer Walter Lippmann and American philosopher John Dewey debated over the role of journalism in a democracy. It is important to understand their differing philosphies." - WHY is it important to understanding their differing philosophies? I'd like to replace that line with something like "Their differing philosophies express two of the most important attitudes to the role of journalism (today? in the US? int eh world?) but I don't know enough about the subject to know whether that's true. Anyone? Lijil 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Journalism[edit]

What this article needs is a summary of the history of journalism, and then we need to create a separate history of journalism article. Then the Role of Journalism entry can be put into context. That entry has a little too much POV, BTW. I plan to start writing this when I have time and have done some research. Anyone who wants to start it themselves, go for it. Gladmax 12:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC.

The history of journalism, or the development of the gathering and transmitting of news, spans the growth of technology and trade, marked by the advent of specialized techniques for gathering and disseminating information on a regular basis that has caused, as one history of journalism surmises, the steady increase of "the scope of news available to us and the speed with which it is transmitted."

Who won the US media war? women in Iraq

By Steve Schifferes BBC News Online, Washington

Peter Arnett on Iraqi TV Peter Arnett: Sacked after appearing on Iraqi TV

The cable news networks have seen a dramatic increase in viewers as a result of the Iraq war.

In the fierce battle for viewers among the competing television news organisations, it has been Fox News Channel, the cable network controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, that has been the big winner.

Fox News, which puts a patriotic spin on the news and became the largest cable news channel in 2002, increased its number of viewers by 300% to average 3.3 million daily viewers during the conflict.

It was a remarkable achievement for the channel, which was only started in 1996.

CNN was second, with 2.65 million, while rival MSNBC, which is owned by the television network NBC, had 1.4 million - the biggest gain, in percentage terms (350%), for the smallest of the cable news stations.

MSNBC copied many features of Fox News, adding conservative commentators, a US flag on screen, and a special section called "America's Bravest" where viewers could send pictures of their loved ones serving in the armed forces in Iraq.

Networks suffer

CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite in 1973 CBS newsman Walter Cronkite influenced a president The big losers, meanwhile, were the TV network's nightly news programmes, which actually lost two million viewers - or 10% - during the same period, after an initial increase in the first few days.

Only NBC, which may have benefited from cross-promotion from its cable channel, was able to stem the decline.

In previous wars, viewers had turned to the trusted anchors like CBS's Dan Rather, ABC's Peter Jennings, and NBC's Tom Brokaw, to interpret the news.

Indeed, it was the comments of former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite during the Vietnam War that helped convince President Lyndon Johnson that he should not stand for office in 1968.

This was reporters' war, not an anchors' war; this involved a series of very profound individual vignettes Andrew Heyward, president, CBS News But the president of CBS News, Andrew Heyward, said the new practice of embedding reporters with military units was a very important change this time around.

"This was reporters' war, not an anchors' war; this involved a series of very profound individual vignettes," he said, which were upsetting to some viewers.

The mainstream networks point out that they still have a total of 28 million viewers, as opposed to between seven million and eight million for the cable news stations.

But this time, CBS's Dan Rather only reached Baghdad in a convoy after the fighting was over.

The dilemma of the networks was reflected in their agonising - during the first weekend of the war - over whether to run 24-hour coverage of the conflict, or to show a popular college basketball tournament which might get higher ratings.

Basketball, inevitably, finally won.

The "Fox effect"

There was also a fierce battle over embedded and other correspondents between the networks.

General Wesley Clark, who later became a television commentator Too many retired officers commenting? The star CNN war correspondent of the 1991 Gulf War, Peter Arnett, who was again in Baghdad, this time for National Geographic and MSNBC, was sacked after appearing on Iraqi television.

Fox News' celebrity presenter Geraldo Rivera was temporarily removed from his unit of the 101st Airborne Division for giving away their position.

Meanwhile, Bush administration officials and military leaders were highly critical of the commentary provided on many news programmes by retired generals, such as CNN's Wesley Clark, as too pessimistic.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that there were too many "retired military officers" who opined on television and newspapers "that constantly, you know, blare big headlines of 'Henny Penny: The Sky Is Falling,' 'It's Just Terrible,' or 'Isn't It Awful?' "

The fact that the war was so extensively covered on cable - and on the internet - has significantly shortened the "news cycle", so that coverage swung very quickly between optimism and pessimism as events unfolded.

There is a long-standing tradition of middle-of-the-road journalism that is objective and fair - I would hate to see that fall victim to the Fox effect Andrew Heyward But after years in which there had been criticism - on radio talk shows and the internet - of the "liberal bias" of the media, this was the moment in which those critics moved into the mainstream, and are now being closely watched by their rivals.

"I certainly think all the news people are watching the success of Fox," Mr Heyward said.

"There is a long-standing tradition in the mainstream press of middle-of-the-road journalism that is objective and fair. I would hate to see that fall victim to the Fox effect."

The highly partisan atmosphere of the news, and the sometimes defensive tone of the main networks, also contributed to an increase in the figures for alternative sources of the news, such as National Public Radio, a small state-funded broadcaster.

The role of journalism (cont’d.): Accorrdiing tto tthe Commiittttee off Concerrned Jourrnalliistts:: •• Jourrnalliistts’’ ffiirrstt lloyalltty iis tto tthe ciittiizzenrry.. •• IItts eessence is a ddiiscipline of verification.. •• IItts pprraaccttiittiionerrs musstt maaiinnttaaiinn aann iinnddeeppeennddeennccee ffrrom tthose tthey coverr.. •• IItt mustt serrve as an iindependentt moniittorr off powerr.. 3 The role of journalism (cont’d.): •• Jourrnnaalliissm muusstt pprroovviiddee aa fforruum fforr publliicc crriittiiciism aand ccoompprroomiissee.. •• IItt musstt ssttrriivvee ttoo maakkee tthhee ssiiggnniiffiiccaanntt iinntteerreessttiinngg andd rrellevvaanntt.. •• IItt mustt keep tthe news comprrehensiive and prroppoorrttiioonnaall.. •• IItts prracttiittiionerrs mustt be allllowed tto exerrciise ttheiirr perrsonal ccoonnsscciieencce..

Don't remove the links[edit]

Hi, all, I don't know who removed the links to the other Wiki journalism pages or external links, but please don't do that again. They are necessary and should be preserved. Gladmax 12:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Prophetic Impulse[edit]

Hello, I wasn't sure where to suggest a new page/topic so I picked this as the best discussion/talking page to start on. In a class I'm taking at the University of Washington, the professor introduced the concept of Prophetic Impulse as the innate motivation to record and report news, events and tell stories. When I searched for this phrase with Google, I found a few pages that referenced a character named Rickydoc but it didn't really give me any insight into how the idea of prophetic impulse and press/journalism relate. I believe there are literary materials out there that discuss this but I think wikipedia could really step in and help fill in this information gap. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my suggestion. 167.88.201.100 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Internet journalists jailed[edit]

[1] Here's an interesting article that should be incorporated somehow to mention that currently 49% of Internet journalists are currently in jail. NorthernThunder 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks NT. After reading more thoroughly - its an interesting statistic. I'll see if it can get some kind of corroboration from any of the original sources. Any pointers will be helpful. AlanBarnet 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Straight writing[edit]

Hi all. This article is pretty good. I realise conjunctions can help the flow of writing BUT they can also make it argumentative:) WP recommends to avoid such writing. I think its easy enough to write it straight. AlanBarnet 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blogs[edit]

i'm reverting vandalism and sorry if the blogs section was meant to be deleted--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Need comment at deletion discussion[edit]

Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

possibly the worst article on wikipedia[edit]

besides things mentioned above... consider that the first newspaper began in the year 1605... and yet this article mentions that journalism came to function in the 1920s...? What a joke! 24.148.118.190 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you didn't ready the 1605 newspaper, and that you didn't read this entire article. Ther reference to the 1920s is regardign moden journalism. There is nothing wrong here, other than the lack of a definition for modern journalism. --136.159.212.181 (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template overhaul proposal[edit]

I've created a reorganization of the {{Journalism}} template that appears on this article. The proposed changed template can be viewed here in my user namespace. I did so mostly to distinguish fields, like fashion and business, from genres, like investigative and watchdog journalism, but also to avoid various redirects, redundancies, and one red link. I've tried to include links to the most general, well-developed articles, because those then tend to include links to articles on various more specific topics. I've also tried to tidy up the visual aspect of the text layout a bit. I realize an organizational overhaul of an article namespace template may be a bit too bold, so I posted a notice at Template talk:Journalism, but after six weeks it doesn't appear to have been much noticed. I've duplicated the notice here in an attempt to notify more editors. Please comment here on this talk page or over on the proposed template talk page if you have any suggestions or ideas so that I can evaluate whether or not my version is agreeable. Thanks! - Tobogganoggin talk 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well folks, it's been a few weeks and I've only received one (positive) response on the template talk page, so I'm implementing my changes. Feel free to contact me for any further discussion.
- Tobogganoggin talk 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback[edit]

I've been working on the stub for Broadcast Journalism. I'd appreciate any feedback anyone has as well as any suggestions for further expansion on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmac9986 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic?[edit]

Isn't it ironic that the Wikipedia article on Journalism "is missing citations or needs footnotes"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.254.47 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Haha! Indeed, ironic. Gary, please help with inputs, then. --Supriya 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is in dire need of an overhaul[edit]

The state of this article is pretty sad. It's a top-level article (a very important one), and yet it suffers from so many issues, many which real journalists could fix. Let's get together and fix like a broken down house, now shall we? Gary King (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I am attempting to re-write this page - the introduction as well as cite quotes, and make it sound less essayish. Please help with inputs. --Supriya 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Umm, is this necessary?

The working hours of news analysts, reporters, and correspondents is usually hectic. They have to meet deadlines. Broadcasts sometimes are aired with little or no time for preparation. Some news analysts, reporters, and correspondents work in comfortable, private offices; others work in large rooms filled with the sound of keyboards and computer printers, as well as the voices of other reporters. Curious onlookers, police, or other emergency workers can distract those reporting from the scene for radio and television. Covering wars, political uprisings, fires, floods, and similar events is often dangerous.

Hahaha. --Supriya 14:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC) it also needs a section on the history of journalism - this is very important. --Supriya 18:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your comment to the bottom of the page per the talk page guidelines - post new sections at the bottom of page. Also, do not insert editorial comments into the main page as you did here. The main page is for information about the subject, even if flawed, the talk page or a sub-page are appropriate for discussions about the extant or future versions. I've rolled-back your additions but your comments are kept in the history if you'd like to refer to them. If you want to editorialize, leave yourself notes or otherwise keep a running set of revisions, use a sub-page of your own page rather than the mainspace. Readers should not experience the thinking of editors while reading up on the article.
Before doing much to the 'introduction', you may want to review WP:LEAD. Some pages have introductions, but most have leads which are very different things. It really looks like you're making edits that would be heartily appropriate on sub-pages, but inappropriate for main pages, so I urge you to set up a sandbox or two to work in. WLU (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sections needed - history of journalism, yellow journalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya (talkcontribs) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


With Professional and ethical standards, does anyone know where these come from? They sum up a fairly sensible approach, but it's not clear if they are a code that exists somewhere or just general advice. Can someone either rewrite this bit or include a source? Otherwise, Ill delete this bit because it's amniguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revans2 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cobblers[edit]

As a British print journalist of some 20 years standing, I have to say that this article is a 'right load of cobblers.' Not only does it have a strong US bias, but many of the 'facts' are just plain wrong. It needs a major overhaul to give it any credibility, or else it should be split in half - so that Britain and the US can have their own journalism pages. (And, even then, I would suggest starting from scratch.)--79.64.183.14 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blimey! Where are all the journalists? This dog's dinner is the first offering to plop up when I type the word journalism into Google. Astonishing. What are all the students on all those media courses doing with themselves? Does not one of them read Wikipedia? The intro alone reads like a particularly bilious school essay. What an irony that this trade, of all trades, should permit such an addled monstrosity to spew its way around unmolested. I flinch, but will attempt to assail the lead some point soon. It's just too embarrassing. All hands to the stomach pump! Wingspeed (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
B-class? I'm baffled. Who on earth gave it that rating? There are plenty more letters available in the alphabet; certainly wouldn't choose that one. This article really is a disgrace. Was thinking of trying to perform surgery, but it's so hopelessly obese and in pain it'd almost be better to put this prolix mess out of its misery and start all over again. Wingspeed (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: have at least made a stab at the lead section. Remainder still needs much work. Wingspeed (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Print[edit]

The last sentence in 1.1 is:
News can be published in a variety of formats (broadsheet, tabloid, magazine and periodical publications) as well as periods (daily, weekly, biweekly, fortnightly or monthly). Is there a reason why "biweekly" and "fortnightly" are both included when they mean the same thing? I would think that this would simply confuse. Dromioofephesus (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well-spotted. Suspect the genius who wrote this makes the common mistake of supposing that biweekly means twice a week. Have accordingly corrected. (Not honestly sure we anyway need such clod-hopping school essay-type details.) Wingspeed (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't biweekly twice a week and fortnightly once in two weeks? 122.161.154.63 (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)(Supriyya)

Words[edit]

There are some serious problems with the use of words by the recent editor(s) of this article. "So-called citizen journalists"?? I mean, is this an encyclopedia or a "let's make digs at each other chatbox"? Citizen journalism is very important to the profession right now and the Internet does not "destabilize" journalism at all. Get a life. Supriya 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) And what in the world is "descriptive material" supposed to mean?! This sounds really amateur. What kind of material are we talking about? Wood? Glass? Teak? Descriptive wood? Descriptive teak? I really wish I were the newsroom editor of the person who wrote this. Then there is a quote below these great words that has been attributed to no one. It leads to a citation, but hello, someone's random philosophy on journalism doesn't merit an inclusion into the article out of the blue! Geez, is this how hacks write? Supriya 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have done a little bit of trimming. This has never been the most elegant of articles and could use editing help; feel free to jump in. - DavidWBrooks 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I'm working on it. Will make changes slowly. Supriya 08:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Database Journalism[edit]

Don't you think we need a whole page/section on database journalism? I was going to create one when I saw it redirected on 'investigative journalism'. What's the rationale for that? It seems to me that database journalism, e.g. using API to distribute and create content, is a totally different world from investigation. Nicolaskb (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Database journalism" could mean either. But it probably typically indicates what is usually called "computer-assisted reporting," thus, "investigative journalism. Maurreen (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Funding Journalism": A new genre, style, field, or type of journalism?[edit]

There's a German Wikipedia article claiming that Funding Journalism is a new form of journalism:

Als Funding Journalism (auch nonprofit journalism [1] oder im deutschen Sprachraum spendenfinanzierter Journalismus genannt) wird die Arbeit von Nichtregierungs- oder Non-Profit-Organisationen bezeichnet, deren Journalisten Hintergrundbeiträge vorwiegend über Politik und Wirtschaft recherchieren, die sich die Medien nicht mehr leisten können oder wollen. [2]

Translation: The term Funding Journalism (also called nonprofit journalism or, in the German language, donation funded journalism) is used for the work of nongovernmental or nonprofit organisations whose journalists research background stories, primarily about politics and economics, that media can't or won't afford anymore.

So here's the question:

  • Is anyone familiar with this term, Funding Journalism, as a new genre, style, field, or type of journalism?
  • Should it, in that case, be added to this article here?

Please enlighten me :-). --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonprofit journalism is growing. But it doesn't define the work itself. It's more about the business part of the operation. Is that any help? Maurreen (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess we're all agreed then. Now if only I could convince the German wikipedians that their article is a case of Wikipedia:No_original_research. Stubborn fellows. And they don't understand English very well. --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Good luck. I have plenty to do on the English version. Maurreen (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Neologisms?[edit]

Have you ever heard of Conspiracy journalism or Innovation journalism? Maurreen (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I nominated one for deletion. Maurreen (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The AFD on "conspiracy journalism" has been relisted to generate more a consensus. Few people have responded, in either direction. I'd appreciate any input. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

journalism is a fine way to express many emotions and different point of views to pursue the reading as well as to inform and entertain the reader.

Quote[edit]

Perhaps this quote can be added:

==PROBLEMS WITH THE ARTICLE== The page does not talk about the current status of journalism worldwide.And it does not provide any foot notes and satisfying references.Had to edit the history of journalism part as someone has simply copied the introduction there.

Journalism Institute[edit]

Take One School of Mass Communication is the best mass communication and journalism operates under the Guru Dronacharya Educational Society. This society is a registered body with the Registrar of Societies. Goverment of National Capital of New Delhi, India. The School is a study center of The Guru Jambheshwar University of science and technology.

Consolidating some information[edit]

I noticed that the article lists 9 or 10 "elements of journalism" from the book of the same name. This information is useful but couldn't it be summarized more briefly? Feel free to improve my attempt. Mike Restivo (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Noticed that someone changed this back to bullet-points (see here), but doesn't this read better as a paragraph? I think so because it presents a summary rather than merely a list. I would be happy to hear other editors' opinions about how to write this section. Mike Restivo (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Elements[edit]

Regarding this edit, can we please attempt to come to a consensus about the best way to phrase the material from Kovach and Rosenstiel's book. It is unclear to me why it is appropriate to simply list this bullet-point list of 10 "elements" from this one book. If these are truly elements of journalism that many journalists and communications scholars agree upon, let us expand the citation to reflect that fact. Meanwhile, I think it is reasonable to briefly summarize Kovach and Rosenstiel in a short paragraph, which I had been trying to do. Two times now, from similar IP accounts, my good-faith effort to improve the readability of this article has been reverted. Which, of course, is fine if that represents the consensus view of other editors here who are working to improve this article. But I see no effort to reach out to other editors here on the talk page to try to resolve this dispute. I will continue to watch the journalism (+talk) page to find a resolution to this issue, but it seems inexplicable to me why we can't at least engage in a dialogue about what is the best way to move forward. Cheers, Mike Restivo (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Internet's Impact/Other Info[edit]

I've added a brief explanation of the Internet's impact on journalism, but I'm not sure if it's too much information or not enough. I think the main definition could use some work, but I'm not sure where to begin (I edited that a bit as well if anyone dislikes the way it reads now).

I'll be checking back here often and intend to continue working on this article, so any suggestions of what needs improvement are helpful. I was going to work on the history section, but I see there is a separate history of journalism page in progress. I'd also like to work to reduce the U.S. bias some users have complained about. Shalu-NJITWILL (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

--

Added info about journalism in Brazil to History section Shalu-NJITWILL (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

i want to become news caster but i do,nt know who education for this pleas tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.191.52 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition | second para[edit]

...

This sentence needs balance.

"... In some nations, the news media is government-controlled and not an independent body that operates within journalistic frameworks."

Government is not the only impediment to balanced journalism? Suggest something like this, as a follow on sentence:

"In other nations, journalistic frameworks may be compromised by commercial pressure and conflicts-of-interest, including corporate ownership, industry monopolies, and undeclared political bias."

what say ye all ?

Avaiki (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

. . .

Journalism images[edit]

Television journalists interviewing a cosplayer
Journalists interviewing a cosplayer
Television jouirnalist interviewing a cosplayer

Hi I think the article can benefit if we include photos of journalists doing their job, e.g. interviewing people. Do you agree? Here are three images showing interviews, what do you think about adding one of them? Can you propose other suitable images? Cogiati (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I think the article looks good with the pics it has now! Cogiati (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

" In some nations, the news media is still controlled by government intervention, and is not fully an independent body."


Would like to suggest addition of:

"In recent decades, a high rate of media amalgamation has seen concerns arise about corporate influence, including conflicts of interest and corruption."

At the moment, freedom of the press surveys focus on government influences. For example, the first time that RSF mentioned the US as a major concern is in relation to the NSA revelations. What is ignored completely is the entire Murdoch scandal, India media corruption scandals, and the like.

Would also suggest that there is a Criticism or Controversies section to address these and other fundamental issues facing modern journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talkcontribs) 00:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC a Requested move in which the participation of editors/watchers of this article would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an RfC, but I realized this is the appropriate process. Lightbreather (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

I believe that this article is not written from a neutral point of view. The article seems to promote the profession of journalism in a way that attempts to persuade the reader to be a journalist or just respect them more. For example, the lead describes journalism as "a service to the public", which is puffery. Really, the entire article contains lots of kinds of specific neutrality red flags that Wikipedia documents like WP:PEACOCK. The "Role" section probably indicates this the most. One reason is because it seems to declare notions that are not cited. I mean, just look at this, from the mentioned Role section:

"Lippmann understood that journalism's role at the time was to act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites. The journalist became the middleman. When elites spoke, journalists listened and recorded the information, distilled it, and passed it on to the public for their consumption. His reasoning behind this was that the public was not in a position to deconstruct the growing and complex flurry of information present in modern society, and so an intermediary was needed to filter news for the masses. Lippmann put it this way: The public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues. Furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy. Therefore the public needed someone to interpret the decisions or concerns of the elite to make the information plain and simple."


NONE of this excerpt is cited, by the way.

The clear interest that whoever is responsible for the bias has in this subject likely caused the long length in the lead and some sections, which obviously doesn't help readability.


I suggest WP:BLOWITUP as a solution.


This conversation is directed to everyone and everyone is free to respond, but some people in particular may be interested in this discussion: User:Neonorange, User:Arthur Rubin, User:SJK, User:Gladmax, User:Wingspeed, User:Maureen, User:Tristan Navera.

--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well,
  • 'Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style that aims to provide a service to the public by the dissemination and analysis of news and other information.' (the full leading sentence) may be US centric, but 'a service to the public' is precisely what is required, by the US federal government, of television stations as a condition of their license to operate. News programming fulfills that requirement. Your interpretation of 'puffery' is mechanical rather than factual in this case. And this sentence is cited.
  • 'Peacock': I am not going to guess at what locations and in what context you found such terms - be specific, please.
  • 'Lippmann text excerpt': Lippmann held notable positions on the role of journalism in a democracy; nothing at all wrong with this as part of an article on journalism; it is necessary, in fact. Dewey's notable positions on this role are in contradiction to Lippmann's, and immediately follow in this section. Where's the violation of neutral point of view? This section could be expanded, but the problem is not neutrality.
  • 'whoever is responsible for the bias': this article has a long history with a large number of contributors (it's User:Maurreen that you meant to mention, I think). The section containing the 'Lippmann-Dewey debate' material was inserted more than seven years ago (by User:MRjerz on 19SEP06). Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. It is hard, but rewarding work. Attention to details and context are necessary. We are all of us editors responsible for this endeavor. So which particular locations and context in this articles do you see 'bias'? Please be specific.
I find this article to be overwhelming about journalism in the US; but the corrective is more content, some trimming and balancing, and perhaps spinning off some material into new articles, NOT WP:BLOWITUP. That essay, WP:BLOWITUP, does not even begin to be appropriate to this discussion or this article. - Neonorange (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What Neonorange said. Guye -- please read back over the comments to you on your talkpage the past few weeks. I don't know if English is not your first language, or if there is another issue, but it is troubling how often your comments are non-consensus views even as to what English words mean. Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is an example of at least a MoS issue: "The journalist became the middleman." That HAS to be presumptuous at best. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you were to look at the top of this talk page, you would see that WikiProject Media agrees with me. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea of what you mean by 'MoS' issue nor what you mean by 'presumptuous'. I'm not going to guess. See "but it is troubling how often your comments are non-consensus views even as to what English words mean." from User:Epeefleche above. Please be specific. And again, the same problem; what at the top of the page? I'm not going to guess. Be specific. Ideally, a discussion such as this should build, one comment upon another, as in a conversation. It doesn't work when you scatter assertions. -Neonorange (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What Neon said. Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Journalism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

B-class? I'm baffled. There are plenty more letters available in the alphabet and, at the time of writing, I certainly wouldn't choose that one. Wingspeed (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

what about modi goverment..?[edit]

what about modi goverment..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.241.24.99 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

This is a peer review for an assignment. I has reviewed this article and here are some of my thoughts.

I think that the article is very well written and offers a lot of valuable information about journalism. The article definitely sounds like a wikipedia article and has the right tone to it. I especially like how the article has many sections, one being a section on the history of journalism, which I found to be very interesting and helpful to read. I noticed that there are some sections that need improvement under Wikipedia's standards, and therefore making these improvements to those sections would be beneficial and something I would suggest looking at and working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholeC (talkcontribs) 23:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Journalism Bibliography: What can be added[edit]

Now that I have read the article on journalism, I feel like there can be a section added to the article that contains information about journalism in today's society and information on how to begin a journalism career or become a specific type of journalist. Becoming a sports journalist or sports broadcaster is currently a future job I want to hold along with other people around the world. "Journalism as a Career" and "Journalism Today" are two examples of sections I would like to add to the main article.

Bibliography: Editor, The Muse. “How to Break Into Journalism.” Free Career Advice, The Muse, 18 Apr. 2013, www.themuse.com/advice/how-to-break-into-journalism.

“The Role Journalism Plays In Society.” The Odyssey Online, 27 Aug. 2017, www.theodysseyonline.com/the-role-journalism-plays-in-society.

“Careers & Degrees in Journalism | How to Become a Journalist.” How to Become, www.learnhowtobecome.org/arts-humanities-careers/journalism/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawsonDanner (talkcontribs) 19:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)