eh maybe I was off the handle a bit, but I know you personally have claimed in the past that you are not a journalist, but it sure seems like journalism to me.
When I say that I am not a journalist, I apply that through my eyes of what I think a journalist is. I think that perspective means a lot, and perhaps you and I have a different perspective on it.
When I think of journalists, I think of Edward R. Murrow, I think of Tom Witosky, I think of guys that make a living every day out of investigating stories, triple checking sources, working on stories for days and sometimes weeks at a time, and then coming out with a story that is top to bottom in depth and just freaking rock solid.
Perhaps, in this day and age, that is an old fashioned view of the word. There usually isn't enough time, and competition for 'breaking it' has eroded a lot of the investigative process.
Citing unnamed sources was taboo, once upon a time. But now, you are more likely to find stories like that than not.
I guess I practice journalism as it was taught to me when there are hard news stories. I definitely make a mental note to follow the book, by the rules, when its hard news.
But on the radio, I am more of a commentator after a story is out there, giving my opinions, because someone thinks my opinions are worthy enough to be shared over the radio. That might not always be the case.
Online and in my magazine, I am mostly an opinion columnist, an analyst. Not a ton of hard news. But when its there, I go by the book, too.
So again, I think it comes down to what your perspective is regarding what a journalist is. I guess at times I do slow down and follow the book. But at other times, its opinion based, and I try not to fly off the handle.
So if you, or others think that is some sort of a convenient way to not call ourselves journalists, you of course are entitled to that opinion. But to me, that's just a label. I focus more on what the story is, what type of story it is, and that is going to determine how I handle it.
