Baffled about Real Journalists
February 23, 2010
I am not a journalist. I don’t even know how one becomes a “real” journalist. I learned when I read “Why We Don’t Trust Devil Mountain Software (and Neither Should You)” that big publishing companies don’t know either, assuming the information in the write up is accurate. I guess I should not be surprised. I learned last week at a person who writes about electronic information is officially an “expert” on electronic information. I suppose that means that if I were a crime reporter and I wrote about an alleged illegal activity, I would be qualified to talk about wrongdoing as an “expert”. I wonder how the professionals in law enforcement, military intelligence, and related disciplines feel about “real” journalists becoming experts by virtue of talking to people and reading news items? I suppose faux expertise and “real” journalists are products of the modern world. I find the footprints of these types of folks when I work to mop up after search and content processing disasters. There is a downside to the lack of information about complex subjects even at outfits who are supposed to “know” what’s “real” and what’s not. One thing is sure. This flap is great for the search engine optimization crowd.
Stephen E Arnold, February 23, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I do use a persona—namely, the addled goose—when I write this column. But I received no crumbs for this article. As a fowl, I will report this bedraggled condition to Fish & Wildlife. I wonder if the “real” journalist was paid for his dual roles?
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
