We need more reporters, fewer journalists

 

"One can be a cat or a dog, but can't be both. Which one are you?"

A longtime business associate of mine is fond of saying that. It's both an accurate statement and a pointed question that forces one to focus attention on the challenges at hand.

I thought about that simple observation the other day, when a young friend asked me if a reporter is the same thing as a journalist, and if so, why don't we call them one or the other and be done with it? 

I said a reporter is different from a journalist these days, but it is understandable how so many view them as the same type of creature. 

I started my work in the news-reporting field 41 years ago, first in radio (for a short time) and then in newspapers, both the weekly and daily type. I am no longer paid to report news, but I still consider myself a reporter and use skills refined over four decades to gather information and share it with readers. 

I told my friend that journalists and reporters shared many of the same qualities when I started in the field, but things changed over the years. Specifically, journalism programs at colleges and universities changed significantly from the 1980s to today. You can check that for yourself, I said.

Once upon a time, a solid J-program taught not only the mechanics of the trade - the who, what, where, when, why and how foundations of news gathering - they also taught ethics. The most important rule taught to me on the subject was to be an objective observer to a story.

A reporter was to be unbiased, an umpire of sorts. "Tell the reader what happened at a meeting or an event and let the reader form an opinion or reach a conclusion," said a favorite professor and mentor.

If the story involved conflict, reporters were trained to craft a balanced presentation of both sides and attribute arguments and assertions to identified sources. Good, reliable reporters still do this today, I think.

Many journalists today, particularly younger ones, self-identify as social justice warriors first, reporters second. 

I read about a reporter last week who was described as a specialist in covering social justice issues. That's a good example of how the news industry has changed. Years ago a reporter might cover the cops, the courts, local schools, the state house, city hall, or any one of several other "beats." 

Some of the best reporters I worked with were "general assignment" reporters, individuals tasked with covering whatever story might break during their work shift. The work required skill, energy, and a lot of brains. 

I preferred working a beat and was productive when assigned to one. "Social justice" was not a beat during my years as a daily reporter, and I worked with several solid editors who would have fought against establishing a "social justice" beat, arguing the name was itself biased and assumed an injustice existed. 

Those editors are no longer producing the news. They've been replaced with workers who aim to correct injustices, real or otherwise, and they do battle with those they believe will commit more injustices if not exposed and stopped. They call themselves journalists, and they mimic reporters in many ways. 

I don't consider them reporters. I make a point of calling them journalists, and reserve the title "reporter" to individuals who practice their trade according to the traditions and guidelines established to provide accountability and safeguard credibility, the most precious element of the news industry.

And that is the true distinction between a reporter and a journalist, in my opinion. A reporter understands credibility and fights to preserve it by adhering to guidelines that protect objectivity. A journalist, as we know them today, surrenders objectivity to advance "social justice" or advocate for the "voiceless." 

One can be a journalist or one can be a reporter, but one can't be both. At least, that's how I see it. 

-- Thank you for reading. Comments are always welcome.