JUST WHAT IS A JOURNALIST?

By Allan R. Andrews, Editor,
Pacific Stars and Stripes, Tokyo, Japan
First published February 9, 1997


Professors at Columbia University posed this question to students in a ``Critical Issues in Journalism'' class: ``What is a journalist?''


The students' answers -- good and bad -- provide insights into what motivates people to seek a living as reporters and editors.


With the knocks journalism is taking these days, even from members of its own ranks, knowing what a journalist is may be the most critical issue of the decade for the media.


If character and personality are important issues for political careers, why not for careers as journalists?


Thanks to Joan Konner, publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, the magazine sponsored by the journalism school at Columbia, several answers given in that class have been made public.


Before I share some of the students' responses, let me take a crack at answering the question: A journalist combines a sense of curiosity, civic concern, idealism, a love of words, and a craftsman's attention to detail in trying to chronicle human activity in the everyday world.


That's my textbook shot; my definition from experience comes later.


When I read the student responses I chuckled, I nodded in agreement, I raised skeptical eyebrows, and when all was done, I also grieved.


One student succinctly said a journalist is ``a nonfiction writer with a job.''


Just barely, many would say. The average starting salary for reporters without experience would make most teachers -- a traditionally underpaid profession -- blanch in horror.


Another student touched on the frequently given academic definition of a journalist as an ``eyewitness to history.''


``Recording history is not the goal of the journalist, but this is ultimately what he or she accomplishes in the attempt to present information that is believed to be of importance to the public.''


I react positively and negatively here: Historians interpret; journalists try not to interpret in gathering news. Journalists are no more eyewitnesses to history than any citizen, and it may be far too self-congratulatory for journalists to say they are observing history in the making. Unless one considers every mundane civic or social function historical, working journalists are rarely spectators to history-making events.


The sports journalist covering the Chicago Bulls may write about ``historic'' events, but his colleague following the Sacramento Kings goes about his job without much sense of history in the making.


On the other hand, someone defines what is important to the public. Often that definer is the reporter.


Along the same lines, another student pinpointed this truth: ``A [good] journalist imposes order, or a sense of order, on the chaotic world we all inhabit. . . . the journalist explains why these seemingly random facts are important enough to warrant precious moments of the reader's attention.''


Many students provided poetic or idealistic definitions:


``I'm reminded of Robert Frost's epitaph: I had a lover's quarrel with the world. That's the kind of journalist I want to be.''


``I am a journalist because I want to make the world a better place, through honest reporting and writing.''


``A caring, feeling person like a police officer, a judge, a politician, a grocery store clerk. We have relationships, children, ailing parents, crazy uncles, . . . these things affect how we think, how we perceive . . . , how we react . . ., with one big difference. Journalists, if they go about it right, continually question their actions, their reactions, their biases.''


``Journalists are the people entrusted with defining reality.''


Whew! That's heady stuff.


I'm reminded of a regional columnist who confessed after years of pushing himself with these high ideals and visions that he's concluded he writes about what he likes for himself.


Several students framed their responses around a ``pursuit of truth.''


Others emphasized the traditional role of the journalist as a ``watchdog'' or the ``eyes of the public'' or a ``check against the abuses of power.''


Superb ideals, but few journalists work in such arenas of power. Many more live off lighter fare such as movies, music and automobiles or spend hours in dreary courthouses or at school board meetings.


I had a colleague who argued that all journalists are fundamentally shy people who enter the profession because it forces them out of themselves and into relationships -- albeit often shallow and short relationships.


One student seemed closer to my colleague's sentiments:

``Journalists would be insufferable in any other profession. They are people temperamentally inclined to the job: they are curious, or restless, they hate desk jobs, hate doing the same thing every day, and have no compelling interest in something more specific.''


I can hear the thousands of editors toiling at desks hissing at this response, though even editors would admit they like the changing world that confronts them each new day.


One clever student wrapped up the profession this way: ``Good journalists pursue truth; great journalists communicate it with grace. Legends do it every week.''


Earlier I said I grieved. I grieve that so many of these students remain captives of a romantic vision.


A journalist to many newspaper beginners is a reporter; they ignore that at most publications there might be five to a dozen editors for every reporter, and often an editor turns a key phrase into a memorable one or tracks down a crucial fact in some obscure archive or saves the reporter from an embarrassing error of style.


In the broadcast media, romance points the beginner to anchorpersons or ``on-camera personalities'' as they are labeled in the television domain. For every on-camera person the evening news employs 30 or more persons off-camera to deliver the news, and the bulk of them are anonymous professional journalists.


I grieve that so many join our number hoping to become celebrities and legends.


Much of the criticism of contemporary journalism should be heaped on the egoists whose primary concern is the pursuit of fame or fortune rather than of truth or the telling of a good story.


As to qualifications for a journalist, I suggest three: learn to read and to think and to write -- in that order.


Return to Pacific Sunday Meanderings
Return to Online Meanderings
Return to Home
Site Contents

Allan R. Andrews can be reached at
allan.andrews@reporters.net