The video survey got me thinking about what defines us in journalism. Is it our skills, our job description or where our desk is in the office? Or is it something more than that?
I couldn’t understand why people were putting these pictures[pictures of friends and family] on flickr, because I have a particular type of brain damage which caused me to forget that the second picture exists. The type of brain damage I’m referring to is “the photographer’s eye”.
Is the guy talking out of his proverbial or is he right?
Now if you asked me to put a cross and touch the pen I’d be voting for the ‘out of his arse’ option here.
I know that he isn’t talking about journalism and I’m certainly not saying that all photographers are imbued with such views. But (and this may just be me) a lot of the conversation about journalism seems perilously close to using the “brain damaged” defence.
What separates the pro from the amateur becomes almost metaphysical: Journalism can not exist outside of journalism and that is only defined within a newsroom.
As Gavin O’Reilly from Independent News & Media, told the Society of Editors meeting this week:
“The USP of the newspaper of the future [will be] built upon journalistic skills that are not simply a God-given right of someone with attitude sitting in a garage in front of a computer, but rather is a skill that is learned and earned.”
So it needs to be a God-given right and then sanctioned by an even higher power then!
The digital mirror
Digital, in all its forms, is becoming the tipping point. The internet, Bloggers , UGC, video, community and CJ’s have tested the definition of journalism and journalist to breaking point. It’s put it out of reach of the paradigm repair approach journalism has got in to (and still indulges in)
There has never been a harsher mirror held up to the industry and rather than holding others up to it we need to bite the bullet and look in it ourselves
Thanks to the venerable Batman for the photogrpahy link