Introduction (David Schultz)

This is a collaborative effort. It is collaboration between two professionals, one a trained and practicing journalist, and one a trained and practicing academic philosopher. "What?" you ask! Yes, it's true. Even though we come from different professions, which do not always have the greatest affection for each other, we have the same concerns about our professions, about our crafts.

Unlike some professions, say being a surgeon, with the Web upon us, anyone can call himself a journalist or philosopher, given a certain set of conditions. For anesthesia, surgical suites, and scalpels are not readily available in the same way that the tools of journalism and philosophy are available (at first sight) to all, namely, words and rationality. And the Web has provided the means for anyone to use them openly.

This gives rise to a problem, and we see it all over the Web: Sloppy thinking and sloppy writing, which are the same, in the end. Good thinking means good writing. Thus, while it might seem strange that a journalist and philosopher approach this subject together, it is entirely natural.

Anyway, the problem we see is roughly as follows: With the Web has come the opportunity to speak to millions of people, thus making some instant “authorities” on subjects. They proclaim themselves to be “journalists” and “philosophers” and the very claim, it is implied, means you should listen to what they say. In short, the Web has created a confusing situation — because more and more have a voice (which is not bad), it appears more and more have the authority to speak. This puts the thoughtful surfer into the position of trying to decipher between fakes and frauds and the real deal. Sometimes it is easy, and sometimes it is not.

But let us say this because we know you are probably thinking it right now: We are not trying to shut anyone up! We are not saying personal web sites, or rants sites, are a bad thing altogether. We are not trying to muzzle anyone. Well, we are not trying to muzzle anyone unless he is fraud.

The problem arises because of the following kind of belief. Journalists research and write, philosophers research and think. So it seems that if someone can write a sentence, or "publish" a Web site, or think a thought, express an opinion, that makes him a journalist or philosopher. In fact, more are calling themselves such on the Web. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Because one can use a Mac it doesn't make him an expert; because a mother gives her child a pill it does not make her a doctor or pharmacist; because one can play in the dirt it doesn't make him a farmer; and because one can write a sentence or hold an opinion it does not make him a journalist or a philosopher.

Part of the problem may be that anyone who speaks, does so wishing to be perceived as an authority. Or to put it differently, people want you to think they speak with authority when they speak. So they attach a label to themselves, and the ones we see much of are “journalist” and, to a lesser degree, “philosopher.” Let us put it this way: If one is going to practice journalism he better be a journalist, and if one is going to philosophize he’d better be a philosopher. Otherwise, we could care less. Yes, we know this sounds elitist! We don't mean to be such though. If one wants to speak his mind then let him, we say. It's a good thing. But if one wants to pretend to be something he is not, or proclaim to be an authority when he is not, we draw the line there.

This puts a burden on the surfer. Is he reading the real deal or not? You should look into the site, the "About Us" pages, and see if in fact there person has the necessary background to speak with authority on a subject. Most times it's obvious from the writing whether he has it or not. But some make the claim, "I have been doing such-and-such for 30 years now," and this is supposed to be sufficient. It is not.

There is much more to these professions than writing a sentence or holding an opinion. In fact, what marks the distinction between a self-proclaimed journalist or philosopher, at least one thing, is that the sentences written and the thoughts thought expressed are so done with blood and tears — they are a part of him, they spring from his nature and his guts, not merely his training. To the philosopher, his work is a CRAFT, not a hobby or something that comes easily. Philosophy, and journalism, is something people do not merely do — they are characteristics people possess. Neither is merely an activity, they are instead ways of being.

The Making of a Journalist
(Michael Munger)

Believing or pretending that you are a journalist does not make you one. It is not because you want in that you will get in. True enough, you do not need formal membership in a union to be a journalist, and this is a deliberate choice by the profession. We want anybody who wants to be a journalist to TRY to be a journalist. From there, folks who believe that they can do it can give it a shot, but there is no assurance of success.

Before you can be a real journalist, you have to learn the profession. You can do it in school. There is more to journalism than mere writing and reporting. It requires a state of mind, a critical state of mind. You have to be able to bypass your own ideas to expose reality as it is. To expose reality as it is, you need to SEE it as it is. This means that when faced with, say, disgruntled folks who sue a company in court, and each tries to convince the media that they are right, you have to be able to see the facts, not fall for any of the two parties' arguments if they are pulling a fast one on you. They are all capable of it. Can you see through the smoke screen?

Can you resist the pro-corporate viewpoint? Can you resist and this one is where most people fail — the temptation to believe the anti-corporate viewpoint, too? Can you, in all honesty, walk on the fine line of objectivity and call the shots as you see them? Can you realize that reality is never in the extremes exposed by people and correct them all at the same time? To do that, you need to see what's right and what's wrong in everything. Reality is neither black nor white. Can you be that critical? Can you do that despite the pressures of interests groups and mostly, live with the truth's lack of political correctness?

Journalism is a profession, an art, a passion and a dedication. To become a journalist, you need solid education, which you can acquire in school or through years of experience. Reporting, writing and everything that journalism implies requires much more than a Web host account and the ability to put an article up. It requires guidance. You need a teacher to show you how to get the work done. This teacher will help you to become the journalist and to unveil your talent IF YOU HAVE IT. Not everybody can be a journalist. It requires natural talents. The teacher in question – who can be a school teacher or a de facto teacher as your colleague or editor - will show you how to write an article in a professional way. He will show you how to get all types of reports done, and mostly, he will teach you how to think like a journalist. He will get your mind to go through all the internal transformations required to have the mind of a journalist.

Such strong guidance is necessary, and rare are the candidates who can successfully become real journalists without it. A teacher will challenge you to do better. He will challenge the way you look at your writing. He will challenge the way you think. He will challenge your visions, ideas and you as a person. This will be a difficult learning process. If you take it personally, it will hurt because you will have the impression that you are not good enough. If you realize what's going on, step up to the plate and answer all the challenges, you are on your way.

The bad news? Living up to such challenges isn't like an exam. It is constant and it will force you to get dirty and learn, until you become a seasoned veteran. And even there! Veterans can't afford to take past successes as a promise of future achievement.

Such a learning experience can be found in schools, not merely on the Web. You could author a Web column for twenty years and still be nothing but a pretender. If you have potential and learn, whether in school or on the fly in real-time media outlets, then, you can pretend to be a journalist.

The critical state of mind we discussed earlier is one of the keys to entering the realm of journalism. You need intellectual independence, while your employer - especially if you work full-time - will provide you the financial independence. Such independence is necessary so that you do not let people influence you with intellectual pressure or baits.

Another aspect of the journalist's mind is intellectual curiosity. Do you have the itch to dig deeper when you feel badly informed enough about a subject? Do you know enough about something to write about it without going further, or are you unsatisfied until you learned everything that you could learn about it? Could you learn through the articles and reports you produce? Do you want to know everything about anything?

A journalist cannot live without information. A journalist always wants to know more and to perpetually learn about everything. He's an information junkie. The journalist has an insatiable curiosity. Again, this is a state of mind. You can discover it when you are really young! This is what happened in our case.

Moreover, becoming a journalist takes dedication. Journalism, as we mentioned earlier, has to be more than a job. It is NOT a job. It is a passion, a state of mind, a dedication, and a way of life. The career that comes with it, when you succeed, is not what you should aim at. The itch to write, the itch to learn, the itch to discover the truth and the itch to unveil reality as it is; that's what you should aim at.

You should aim at the impossible task of changing the world by revealing the truth. You have to aim at perfection, even if you know that it cannot be attained.

Good writing is not the center of journalism. It is merely a tool. You constantly have to work on it, but it is nevertheless a tool to communicate with your public. It is a powerful tool, but not an end in itself.

A real journalist, through his state of mind, is nothing close to a puppet. His independence of mind, like that of a philosopher, forces him to use objectivity. It separates his thoughts from those of all circles, of the line of thinking of his media outlet's owner. He also has, as strange as this will sound, a love-hate relationship with his public! The public is the journalist's bread and butter and it is normal to satisfy its demands, but not just any demand! They say that you can't blame someone for serving up what people want to have, but in the world of journalism, this is absolute nonsense!

While important, the public cannot order articles just like a pizza. The public cannot determine the ethics of a journalist and simply tell him how to do his job. This is why there has to be a distance between the writer and his audience, to make sure that the reporter is more than a mere puppet who reproduces someone's desires without critical thinking. Breaking such rules gets many news outlets to deliver nothing but what we call infotainment, without caring about the very principles of quality journalism. To get familiar with the antithesis of journalism, look at the tabloids hanging at the "newsstands" of grocery stores and at daily papers with screaming sensational headlines about blood, sex and sports.

Also, to become a real-time journalist, you have to realize the impact of your work on society, which forces you to be responsible while doing your work. Not only do people read you; they believe you or feel contradicted by you. You have an impact, especially when you involve the names of people and their reputations. This is why journalism calls for fairness. Fairness toward individuals; fairness toward majorities and minorities, fairness toward corporations; fairness toward governments; fairness toward the readers.

Journalism has an impact on society and it has to be able to reflect it. It has to see reality as it is and perceive what our world is made of. It has to notice tendencies as they shape up. It has to take society's pulse and describe it.

Rumors, in the world of journalism, are nothing but rumors. They are not factual, and not considered as news. For a rumor to become news, its factuality needs to be verified with all the journalist's rigor. Otherwise, it is the McDonald's Big Mac of information. If, to the extreme, a journalist feels like using the rumor, he will present it as is, as a rumor, and will leave it at that. He will not try to give it any credibility or legitimacy.

Anybody who fails the above tests cannot be considered a journalist, but a mere pretender. As unfortunate as it sounds, it is cold truth. Pretenders are welcome to try becoming part of the profession, but they should never declare themselves journalists by self-appointment. They need guidance and hard-learned experience.

Conclusion

Our plea is one for quality practice of our professions. We do not want to scare anyone and force anybody to renounce to the wonderful worlds of philosophy of journalism. But for the love of our respective professions, we request that individuals who did not go through the learning and experiences described above stop calling themselves philosophers and journalists just because they can expose a thought or write an article. Journalists and philosophers work hard and possess attributes that few people have. It is unfair when unqualified persons claim to be journalists and philosophers just because they want it that way.

Authority is not proclaimed (like a kingship), it is earned and shown.

Michael Munger is a regular contributor to www.lowendmac.com and www.macobserver.com. Sometimes he guests here.

Introduction (David Schultz)

The Making of a Journalist (Michael Munger)

Conclusion

The Making of a Journalist
(Michael Munger)