I'm from sports talk radio( 16 years) , so my comments can get pointed, but they were always said in hopes to get a better level of discussion on the shows beyond "Gee why do those publishers, film studios, or TV networks do that?"
I think podcasters have the access and ability to ask industry people why things happen that fans don't like. I guess some shows would rather just bitch and complain and be satisfied that they don't want to know the answers.
This gets to what is the show about? Is it a news show? Is it a fanboy show? Is it an interview show?
Interview shows are stuck in a strange place in that they are like cable news: If they call people out on bullshit, not only will they not get that guest back, but word gets around quickly that it's not a friendly environment...and you've got to be pretty damn powerful to have people on your show if they won't be handled like it's Jimmy Kimmel.
But in the end, because the industry is in the hands of a single distributor and a handful of publishers, we will only get what the PR Flacks what us to have. Again, unless a creator speaks out.
This gets to what is the show about? Is it a news show? Is it a fanboy show? Is it an interview show?
Interview shows are stuck in a strange place in that they are like cable news: If they call people out on bullshit, not only will they not get that guest back, but word gets around quickly that it's not a friendly environment...and you've got to be pretty damn powerful to have people on your show if they won't be handled like it's Jimmy Kimmel.
But in the end, because the industry is in the hands of a single distributor and a handful of publishers, we will only get what the PR Flacks what us to have. Again, unless a creator speaks out.
I disagree. There is only one publisher (DC) who still will make me go thru the PR machine to get an interview. I talk directly to creators from Marvel Image and all the rest.
There are tactful ways to ask tough questions, and again whether it fits your definition or not, doing an interview IS journalism.
You're both right. Doing a write-up of a press release is still journalism, as long as the writer sticks to the facts. The problem is when sites just repost the press release verbatim rather than editing out the hype and sensationalism. That is bad journalism, and effectively marketing.
Especially if they go one step further and create a click-bait headline and then still just copy & paste the press release without comment...
You define journalism as ANYTHING giving information, while I define it as having things such as the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability - A PR flack isn't going to be objective, impartial, fair or accountable. So, cool, we are just using the word in different contexts.
You're both right. Doing a write-up of a press release is still journalism, as long as the writer sticks to the facts. The problem is when sites just repost the press release verbatim rather than editing out the hype and sensationalism. That is bad journalism, and effectively marketing.
Exactly. We see the word differently.
And I have yet to see any of the Big Sites take out the hype. Don't want to make the publishers upset so that they don't give us the scoops. We know what happened to Wizard when they made Marvel upset....
You define journalism as ANYTHING giving information, while I define it as having things such as the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability - A PR flack isn't going to be objective, impartial, fair or accountable. So, cool, we are just using the word in different contexts.
You're both right. Doing a write-up of a press release is still journalism, as long as the writer sticks to the facts. The problem is when sites just repost the press release verbatim rather than editing out the hype and sensationalism. That is bad journalism, and effectively marketing.
Exactly. We see the word differently.
And I have yet to see any of the Big Sites take out the hype. Don't want to make the publishers upset so that they don't give us the scoops. We know what happened to Wizard when they made Marvel upset....
I do agree with John that interviews are a form of journalism. As with print, there are many categories of journalism into which interviews may fall. But whether you agree with that or not, interviews are an integral part of the journalistic process no matter the medium. How valuable they are on the journalistic scale depends on the interviewer and the interviewee.
You define journalism as ANYTHING giving information, while I define it as having things such as the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability - A PR flack isn't going to be objective, impartial, fair or accountable. So, cool, we are just using the word in different contexts.
You're both right. Doing a write-up of a press release is still journalism, as long as the writer sticks to the facts. The problem is when sites just repost the press release verbatim rather than editing out the hype and sensationalism. That is bad journalism, and effectively marketing.
Exactly. We see the word differently.
And I have yet to see any of the Big Sites take out the hype. Don't want to make the publishers upset so that they don't give us the scoops. We know what happened to Wizard when they made Marvel upset....
refresh my memory on wizard and marvel?
Marvel felt that they were slamming them too much in the magazine and stopped giving them the "exclusives" that made it so Wizard had scoops before websites.
Re: Peter and John: Hmmmm. So I guess there ARE rivalries within the comics podcasting universe. This one obviously has some history. Wish there was some comics journalism to cover it.
I also know John's biggest issue with some podcasters is that we/they have never invited him on our podcasts. How's that for sour grapes?
And just so people know, I will show up on any podcast at any time and talk about anything. I'm a slut in that way.
Re: Peter and John: Hmmmm. So I guess there ARE rivalries within the comics podcasting universe. This one obviously has some history. Wish there was some comics journalism to cover it.
I also know John's biggest issue with some podcasters is that we/they have never invited him on our podcasts. How's that for sour grapes?
And just so people know, I will show up on any podcast at any time and talk about anything. I'm a slut in that way.
Ha! I'm right there with you.
[Edit: I have been on podcasts a few times, and @Peter was my first, way back in 2006. You always remember your first. ;) ]
You define journalism as ANYTHING giving information, while I define it as having things such as the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability - A PR flack isn't going to be objective, impartial, fair or accountable. So, cool, we are just using the word in different contexts.
You're both right. Doing a write-up of a press release is still journalism, as long as the writer sticks to the facts. The problem is when sites just repost the press release verbatim rather than editing out the hype and sensationalism. That is bad journalism, and effectively marketing.
Exactly. We see the word differently.
And I have yet to see any of the Big Sites take out the hype. Don't want to make the publishers upset so that they don't give us the scoops. We know what happened to Wizard when they made Marvel upset....
refresh my memory on wizard and marvel?
Marvel felt that they were slamming them too much in the magazine and stopped giving them the "exclusives" that made it so Wizard had scoops before websites.
Gotcha.
the same thing happened with CBR and Rama at various times. But in all cases Wiz CBR and Rama still did their jobs and were critical of the pubs when they disagreed with storylines, or line wide reboots or biz practices. Marvel and DC would come around and it was business as usual.
Wizard Mag fell because they couldn't compete with the 24 hr news cycle that the web provides. They didn't want to "give away their content" . Subscribers were getting the same news.
'Exclusives" are useless today. In less than an hour every other news-site is re-writing the same story.
they have the same impact as the comment writer who's posts FIRST
I am unsure if Marvel being upset over that stuff is what caused the break with Wizard World, but Marvel seems to not want to have anything to do with those conventions.
I am unsure if Marvel being upset over that stuff is what caused the break with Wizard World, but Marvel seems to not want to have anything to do with those conventions.
Marvel has had very little to do with any conventions for several years now. I remember when they used to have a presence at Heroes Con, but that was over ten years ago.
I think some people here are using the term 'journalism' loosely. What comics culture has now is mostly press release regurgitation, "exclusive" previews, (mostly) fawning reviews, and the occasional clever column on Superman being a "dick," a weird bronze-age story everyone has a fuzzy memory of, or something to that effect.
What's absent from comic book culture today, in my estimation, is investigative journalism, where a reporter deeply investigates topics of more serious interest who may spend months or years researching and preparing their report. There is no such thing as "accountability reporting" in the comics industry these days unless someone is being witty or has an axe to grind. And when it happens, it's rare. Of course, that kind of reporting also takes a lot of time and resources.
Some sales reporting comes close to filling this niche, as they analyze the numbers, or maybe report on lawsuits, rumors or alleged misconduct, and there's the occasional social issues discussed, but there's generally very little scrutiny of the industry. I can't remember the last time I read a story that contained numerous interviews with on-the-record sources or interviews with anonymous sources or a whistle-blower when it comes to the comics industry - and often times that's just unsubstantiated "click-bait". And do people even want that in this 'infotainment' age?
Maybe that's a role of podcasts..?
I personally would like to see more fact-checking of the companies' press releases and public statements, and challenging these publishers about unadressed problems or concerns, even if they are unpopular positions to take, but with so many of these outlets likely concerned about losing access (or just being lazy), that's going to be very rare.
I am unsure if Marvel being upset over that stuff is what caused the break with Wizard World, but Marvel seems to not want to have anything to do with those conventions.
Doing the elaborate booths at cons cost a ton of cash in traveling freight insuring props costumes and set pieces, company manpower for the booths etc.
DC cut back too . Fletcher Chu Fong of DC said it was 100 grand in costs to set up and run the DC booth at cons.
Marvel usually sets up these days when they have a sponsor partner, or San Diego which goes under the movie & Tv publicity. Why DC doesn't see it that way? Beats me.
Yes, it's clear that all of this tension and snapping is just a roundabout way of saying we are ALL bummed that no one confirmed for @ShaneKelly that Speed Reader was indeed part of "The Great Space Coaster" show.
Re: Peter and John: Hmmmm. So I guess there ARE rivalries within the comics podcasting universe. This one obviously has some history. Wish there was some comics journalism to cover it.
I also know John's biggest issue with some podcasters is that we/they have never invited him on our podcasts. How's that for sour grapes?
And just so people know, I will show up on any podcast at any time and talk about anything. I'm a slut in that way.
And just so people know, I love Geek on Geek crimes.
This is an interesting discussion. I interview people all the time. I sometimes can speak with someone directly, other times through an intermediary. I take the information and assemble it into a final objective, fact filled narrative to be read. There are times I've had to cite other works. Other times I illustrate a timeline of events revealed to be related to the initial purpose of my interview. Despite all of that, I'm not a journalist. The report I generate isn't a piece of journalism. I'm a detective. My final piece is a report reflecting my investigation.
If John is doing the same series of steps & hoops I do, is his final piece considered an investigative report. Could John tell people he is a detective because part of his final product involves interviews?
Also, I don't consider Previews journalism anymore then I do my Cabela's magazine. Hell, Dynamite Entertainment will occasionally include a brief interview in the back of their comics. I wouldn't say that makes the whole issue a piece of journalism.
If John is doing the same series of steps & hoops I do, is his final piece considered an investigative report. Could John tell people he is a detective because part of his final product involves interviews?
The difference is who the report is intended for. John’s is for the general public, yours is for a specific client. Detectives, journalists, historians, and even paparazzi use many of the same skill sets in their work. What makes their jobs distinct is the intended purpose of the work, the format in which it is presented, and the audience for which it is intended.
Previews isn’t journalism, because it’s a catalog. It is advertising. Its intended purpose is to get people to buy the products they list. The interviews they run inside are marketing pieces intended to convince people to buy the products they are talking about.
Same goes for the brief interviews in the back of a Dynamite comic—it’s advertising/marketing. It’s intended to make the Dynamite readers more invested in Dynamite’s comics so they will buy more of their comics. And when you put an ad inside a magazine or a newspaper, that doesn’t make the entire publication an ad. Comic strips in the newspaper don’t make the newspaper a comic. So if there was a legitimate piece of journalism in the back of a comic book, why would that make the entire publication journalism? Rolling Stone magazine often has prestige journalism inside its pages, but it’s still considered an entertainment magazine.
A lot of people seem to think that if you aren’t Woodward and Bernstein, then you aren’t a journalist, and that’s simply not the case.
This is an interesting discussion. I interview people all the time. I sometimes can speak with someone directly, other times through an intermediary. I take the information and assemble it into a final objective, fact filled narrative to be read. There are times I've had to cite other works. Other times I illustrate a timeline of events revealed to be related to the initial purpose of my interview. Despite all of that, I'm not a journalist. The report I generate isn't a piece of journalism. I'm a detective. My final piece is a report reflecting my investigation.
If John is doing the same series of steps & hoops I do, is his final piece considered an investigative report. Could John tell people he is a detective because part of his final product involves interviews?
Also, I don't consider Previews journalism anymore then I do my Cabela's magazine. Hell, Dynamite Entertainment will occasionally include a brief interview in the back of their comics. I wouldn't say that makes the whole issue a piece of journalism.
Really Matt? honestly,are you all that bullheaded that I have to state the obvious?
OK I'll do this slowly...
Yes Matt though we both interview people the reasons why we each do interviews end up being for different reasons. There is a difference between detective, police, court depositions or even job interviews than journalism interviews.
See, print TV radio web interviews are done for public consumption. that's why these types of media interviews i've stated do meet that dictionary definition of journalism, whereas your example doesn't, and doesn't make me a detective (don't remember claiming to be one).
really it only shows you folk who disagree, have a weird lack of understanding the basics of what broadcasters, print-digital reporters or some podcasts do.
you can judge for yourselves the "news value" of any such interviews, but again the dictionary definition of journalism is there to give a guideline that, like it or not the kind of podcast interviews many do like me, would count as journalism.
There are other deeper forms of investigative journalism, but my stuff is meant for entertainment and information. That doesn't keep it from being basic journalism.
Like Bill Maher says "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
This is an interesting discussion. I interview people all the time. I sometimes can speak with someone directly, other times through an intermediary. I take the information and assemble it into a final objective, fact filled narrative to be read. There are times I've had to cite other works. Other times I illustrate a timeline of events revealed to be related to the initial purpose of my interview. Despite all of that, I'm not a journalist. The report I generate isn't a piece of journalism. I'm a detective. My final piece is a report reflecting my investigation.
If John is doing the same series of steps & hoops I do, is his final piece considered an investigative report. Could John tell people he is a detective because part of his final product involves interviews?
Also, I don't consider Previews journalism anymore then I do my Cabela's magazine. Hell, Dynamite Entertainment will occasionally include a brief interview in the back of their comics. I wouldn't say that makes the whole issue a piece of journalism.
Really Matt? honestly,are you all that bullheaded that I have to state the obvious?
OK I'll do this slowly...
Yes Matt though we both interview people the reasons why we each do interviews end up being for different reasons. There is a difference between detective, police, court depositions or even job interviews than journalism interviews.
See, print TV radio web interviews are done for public consumption. that's why these types of media interviews i've stated do meet that dictionary definition of journalism, whereas your example doesn't, and doesn't make me a detective (don't remember claiming to be one).
really it only shows you folk who disagree, have a weird lack of understanding the basics of what broadcasters, print-digital reporters or some podcasts do.
you can judge for yourselves the "news value" of any such interviews, but again the dictionary definition of journalism is there to give a guideline that, like it or not the kind of podcast interviews many do like me, would count as journalism.
There are other deeper forms of investigative journalism, but my stuff is meant for entertainment and information. That doesn't keep it from being basic journalism.
Like Bill Maher says "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
I wouldn't say "bullheaded"; that would imply a resistance to adapting & I'm always interested in evolving to a better, more rounded version of myself.
I can't deny being a dick, though. Pun intended.
I'm aware you never claimed to be a detective. I was using it as part of the conversation, not to comment on what you said. It wasn't meant as a passive aggressive attack on you. I could've just as easily insert Mario Lopez in that paragraph then you. I'm reminded of an issue of Batman/Superman (either 1 or 2) where Kent notes "it's called investigative journalism".
I can't say you're not a journalist because I haven't followed your career. I will say, I've streamed sports talk out of Boston daily for the better part of 5 years. Love the guys at WEEI. They have great insight into the 4 teams.
On the morning show, one guy occasionally writes articles for the station's website side. The other occasionally writers for the website or the Herald.
The midday show has 2 former pro athletes & a guy who began calling C's games before joining the station in the 90s. All 3 have side gigs on one of the 2 tv networks where they talk sports. The 2 former athletes also occasionally call games too.
There are 3 afternoon guys; again all 3 have side gigs on either Comcast or NESN. One is apart of the Bruins broadcasts for pre-, intermissions, & post-game coverage. Another also is a novelist. The third has a blog on the station's website.
All three shows talk sports, report announcements, talk about articles about sports, & conduct interviews. Despite this, I really see them as broadcasters, not journalist. The 2 in the morning I'd say are journalists.
I don't see Howard Stern as a journalist either. I see him as a broadcaster.
I don't see Kelly Ripa as a journalist. I don't see the people on E news as journalist. I see them all as broadcasters.
When the DJs on the local station interview a representative of the humane society or "Mr. Freedom" of Freedom Toyota lot, I don't see them as journalists.
Now, I'm sure it'll be pointed out that broadcasting falls under journalism. I understand that. Despite being in the public sector, I technically work in the criminal justice field. That doesn't mean what I do involves criminals or justice.
I cannot say what goes into your interviews or episodes to say if it sounds more like broadcasting then journalism to me. A former cohost on CGS told me the show is viable journalism & I disagreed. A couple guys (& now "and girl") sitting around talking comics isn't journalism just because the discussion moved from the LCB shop to recording in a studio. That's not a slight against you, it's how I interpret what CGS is.
You can say by the truest meaning of the word "journalism" it is. I've been told the true meaning of the "Stars & Stripes" is about slavery and promoting slavery. Also, the American flag is really a symbol of the power of the "white man" oppressing everyone else. I disagree that's what those mean today, just as I disagree what is considered "journalism" today.
In the end, maybe that makes me more shortsighted then actually bullheaded.*
M
* see, if I wasn't evolving, I'd have issues understanding my own shortcomings & flaws.
aside from that Matt I'm not only a detective...I'M BATMAN ;)
I see. There are some nice gentleman in white scrubs, sort of like doctors & nurses wear, who are fascinated to hear more. Don't be alarmed by the extra long sleeved jacket they brought with them. It's kinda like a Snuggie, where instead of being a robe worn backward, it's a jacket you wear backward.
If John is doing the same series of steps & hoops I do, is his final piece considered an investigative report. Could John tell people he is a detective because part of his final product involves interviews?
The difference is who the report is intended for. John’s is for the general public, yours is for a specific client. Detectives, journalists, historians, and even paparazzi use many of the same skill sets in their work. What makes their jobs distinct is the intended purpose of the work, the format in which it is presented, and the audience for which it is intended.
Previews isn’t journalism, because it’s a catalog. It is advertising. Its intended purpose is to get people to buy the products they list. The interviews they run inside are marketing pieces intended to convince people to buy the products they are talking about.
Same goes for the brief interviews in the back of a Dynamite comic—it’s advertising/marketing. It’s intended to make the Dynamite readers more invested in Dynamite’s comics so they will buy more of their comics. And when you put an ad inside a magazine or a newspaper, that doesn’t make the entire publication an ad. Comic strips in the newspaper don’t make the newspaper a comic. So if there was a legitimate piece of journalism in the back of a comic book, why would that make the entire publication journalism? Rolling Stone magazine often has prestige journalism inside its pages, but it’s still considered an entertainment magazine.
A lot of people seem to think that if you aren’t Woodward and Bernstein, then you aren’t a journalist, and that’s simply not the case.
Not necessarily "Woodward & Bernstein," but I'd definitely say along those lines. Look, if the interview involves just general bullshitting, then I don't consider that journalism. If Kimmel has Affleck on to talk about his new movie, I don't see that as journalism. It's too informal for me to see it as such.
I'd say my ideal form of journalism has more objective, involves research, & retains a level of a formal process.
Samantha Bee, the Daily Show, Talk Soup might all be considered journalism, but the obvious bias, laugh tracks, audience members, & parody aspects removes those shows from the category for me.
Nothing against bloggers, but I don't really consider them journalist either. In fact, when I cite references for my reports, I avoid using blogs.
Comments
Interview shows are stuck in a strange place in that they are like cable news: If they call people out on bullshit, not only will they not get that guest back, but word gets around quickly that it's not a friendly environment...and you've got to be pretty damn powerful to have people on your show if they won't be handled like it's Jimmy Kimmel.
But in the end, because the industry is in the hands of a single distributor and a handful of publishers, we will only get what the PR Flacks what us to have. Again, unless a creator speaks out.
Really? Which shows?
that is 100% not true . I have a podcast, why would I give 2 fucks about being on other shows? I guest on other comic podcasts a few times a year.
geez peter, there are legitimate beefs between us, so why must you LIE about silly shit?
Interview shows are stuck in a strange place in that they are like cable news: If they call people out on bullshit, not only will they not get that guest back, but word gets around quickly that it's not a friendly environment...and you've got to be pretty damn powerful to have people on your show if they won't be handled like it's Jimmy Kimmel.
But in the end, because the industry is in the hands of a single distributor and a handful of publishers, we will only get what the PR Flacks what us to have. Again, unless a creator speaks out.
I disagree. There is only one publisher (DC) who still will make me go thru the PR machine to get an interview. I talk directly to creators from Marvel Image and all the rest.
There are tactful ways to ask tough questions, and again whether it fits your definition or not, doing an interview IS journalism.
And I have yet to see any of the Big Sites take out the hype. Don't want to make the publishers upset so that they don't give us the scoops. We know what happened to Wizard when they made Marvel upset....
refresh my memory on wizard and marvel?
[Edit: I have been on podcasts a few times, and @Peter was my first, way back in 2006. You always remember your first. ;) ]
the same thing happened with CBR and Rama at various times. But in all cases Wiz CBR and Rama still did their jobs and were critical of the pubs when they disagreed with storylines, or line wide reboots or biz practices. Marvel and DC would come around and it was business as usual.
Wizard Mag fell because they couldn't compete with the 24 hr news cycle that the web provides. They didn't want to "give away their content" . Subscribers were getting the same news.
'Exclusives" are useless today. In less than an hour every other news-site is re-writing the same story.
they have the same impact as the comment writer who's posts FIRST
What's absent from comic book culture today, in my estimation, is investigative journalism, where a reporter deeply investigates topics of more serious interest who may spend months or years researching and preparing their report. There is no such thing as "accountability reporting" in the comics industry these days unless someone is being witty or has an axe to grind. And when it happens, it's rare. Of course, that kind of reporting also takes a lot of time and resources.
Some sales reporting comes close to filling this niche, as they analyze the numbers, or maybe report on lawsuits, rumors or alleged misconduct, and there's the occasional social issues discussed, but there's generally very little scrutiny of the industry. I can't remember the last time I read a story that contained numerous interviews with on-the-record sources or interviews with anonymous sources or a whistle-blower when it comes to the comics industry - and often times that's just unsubstantiated "click-bait". And do people even want that in this 'infotainment' age?
Maybe that's a role of podcasts..?
I personally would like to see more fact-checking of the companies' press releases and public statements, and challenging these publishers about unadressed problems or concerns, even if they are unpopular positions to take, but with so many of these outlets likely concerned about losing access (or just being lazy), that's going to be very rare.
YMMV, but I like Comics Beat, The Outhousers, and sometimes Comics Alliance.
DC cut back too . Fletcher Chu Fong of DC said it was 100 grand in costs to set up and run the DC booth at cons.
Marvel usually sets up these days when they have a sponsor partner, or San Diego which goes under the movie & Tv publicity. Why DC doesn't see it that way? Beats me.
youtube.com/watch?v=MThvK2y7QgI
M
If John is doing the same series of steps & hoops I do, is his final piece considered an investigative report. Could John tell people he is a detective because part of his final product involves interviews?
Also, I don't consider Previews journalism anymore then I do my Cabela's magazine. Hell, Dynamite Entertainment will occasionally include a brief interview in the back of their comics. I wouldn't say that makes the whole issue a piece of journalism.
M
Previews isn’t journalism, because it’s a catalog. It is advertising. Its intended purpose is to get people to buy the products they list. The interviews they run inside are marketing pieces intended to convince people to buy the products they are talking about.
Same goes for the brief interviews in the back of a Dynamite comic—it’s advertising/marketing. It’s intended to make the Dynamite readers more invested in Dynamite’s comics so they will buy more of their comics. And when you put an ad inside a magazine or a newspaper, that doesn’t make the entire publication an ad. Comic strips in the newspaper don’t make the newspaper a comic. So if there was a legitimate piece of journalism in the back of a comic book, why would that make the entire publication journalism? Rolling Stone magazine often has prestige journalism inside its pages, but it’s still considered an entertainment magazine.
A lot of people seem to think that if you aren’t Woodward and Bernstein, then you aren’t a journalist, and that’s simply not the case.
OK I'll do this slowly...
Yes Matt though we both interview people the reasons why we each do interviews end up being for different reasons. There is a difference between detective, police, court depositions or even job interviews than journalism interviews.
See, print TV radio web interviews are done for public consumption. that's why these types of media interviews i've stated do meet that dictionary definition of journalism, whereas your example doesn't, and doesn't make me a detective (don't remember claiming to be one).
really it only shows you folk who disagree, have a weird lack of understanding the basics of what broadcasters, print-digital reporters or some podcasts do.
you can judge for yourselves the "news value" of any such interviews, but again the dictionary definition of journalism is there to give a guideline that, like it or not the kind of podcast interviews many do like me, would count as journalism.
There are other deeper forms of investigative journalism, but my stuff is meant for entertainment and information. That doesn't keep it from being basic journalism.
Like Bill Maher says "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
I can't deny being a dick, though. Pun intended.
I'm aware you never claimed to be a detective. I was using it as part of the conversation, not to comment on what you said. It wasn't meant as a passive aggressive attack on you. I could've just as easily insert Mario Lopez in that paragraph then you. I'm reminded of an issue of Batman/Superman (either 1 or 2) where Kent notes "it's called investigative journalism".
I can't say you're not a journalist because I haven't followed your career. I will say, I've streamed sports talk out of Boston daily for the better part of 5 years. Love the guys at WEEI. They have great insight into the 4 teams.
On the morning show, one guy occasionally writes articles for the station's website side. The other occasionally writers for the website or the Herald.
The midday show has 2 former pro athletes & a guy who began calling C's games before joining the station in the 90s. All 3 have side gigs on one of the 2 tv networks where they talk sports. The 2 former athletes also occasionally call games too.
There are 3 afternoon guys; again all 3 have side gigs on either Comcast or NESN. One is apart of the Bruins broadcasts for pre-, intermissions, & post-game coverage. Another also is a novelist. The third has a blog on the station's website.
All three shows talk sports, report announcements, talk about articles about sports, & conduct interviews. Despite this, I really see them as broadcasters, not journalist. The 2 in the morning I'd say are journalists.
I don't see Howard Stern as a journalist either. I see him as a broadcaster.
I don't see Kelly Ripa as a journalist. I don't see the people on E news as journalist. I see them all as broadcasters.
When the DJs on the local station interview a representative of the humane society or "Mr. Freedom" of Freedom Toyota lot, I don't see them as journalists.
Now, I'm sure it'll be pointed out that broadcasting falls under journalism. I understand that. Despite being in the public sector, I technically work in the criminal justice field. That doesn't mean what I do involves criminals or justice.
I cannot say what goes into your interviews or episodes to say if it sounds more like broadcasting then journalism to me. A former cohost on CGS told me the show is viable journalism & I disagreed. A couple guys (& now "and girl") sitting around talking comics isn't journalism just because the discussion moved from the LCB shop to recording in a studio. That's not a slight against you, it's how I interpret what CGS is.
You can say by the truest meaning of the word "journalism" it is. I've been told the true meaning of the "Stars & Stripes" is about slavery and promoting slavery. Also, the American flag is really a symbol of the power of the "white man" oppressing everyone else. I disagree that's what those mean today, just as I disagree what is considered "journalism" today.
In the end, maybe that makes me more shortsighted then actually bullheaded.*
M
* see, if I wasn't evolving, I'd have issues understanding my own shortcomings & flaws.
No worries!
M
I'd say my ideal form of journalism has more objective, involves research, & retains a level of a formal process.
Samantha Bee, the Daily Show, Talk Soup might all be considered journalism, but the obvious bias, laugh tracks, audience members, & parody aspects removes those shows from the category for me.
Nothing against bloggers, but I don't really consider them journalist either. In fact, when I cite references for my reports, I avoid using blogs.
M