2.17.2010

1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-17/the-lefts-top-25-journalists/?cid=hp:exc

A. From this article I learned that the new world of journalism does not even bother to acknowledge the principal of objectivity, but leaps right into the stream of consciousness that has come to the conclusion that maintaining objectivity is a completely asinine concept. Within the blog the writer even says that “Our definition of “journalist” is a loose one, and may not please some J-school pedants: We include anyone whose primary vocation is to supply, edit, host, or curate information, news reporting, criticism, or opinion” further proving that objectivity is no longer a necessity for journalistic writing.

B. Once again, on this list of the 25 best liberal journalists are mostly what I would call commentators. The contributors to the beast even refer to them as leftists. This author says “Classifying our journalists as being “on the left” protects us from being derailed by pesky questions of taxonomy—whether someone is “liberal,” “progressive” or “radical”—although everyone on this list could be said, plausibly, to belong to one of those categories.”

C. As I pursue a career in journalism it may be wise to keep in mind the fact that journalism is becoming more and more partial to commentators. According to the article “almost four times as many American journalists identify themselves as “liberal” than as “conservative” I don’t really identify with any particular point of view, does this many me an anomaly in journalism? Could this be an advantage?

2.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/education/18educ.html?scp=3&sq=2/18/10&st=cse

This story presents information in a straightforward systematic manner that I found refreshing. The writer used good sources and employed excellent writing techniques. Also, the story it self was relevant and the information presented was information and useful. The only gripe that I have with the NYtimes is that occasionally the articles are soooo long.