News-Record.com

Are Peter Jennings and Brian Williams journalists?

You could argue that they are, inasmuch as they are part of the system for distributing the information to the public. But I would say no, unless they're involved in the news gathering and/or editing. If they're not, then they're just reading.

On the flip side, you could argue that the N&R's page designers are not journalists on the grounds that they simply help package and distribute the news. But in fact, they frequently have to exercise editing discretion and news judgment, so they qualify.

I realize there's a fine, undefined line that separates journalists from other media workers, but I see Rush Limbaugh as a columnist of sorts. He finds topics that interest him, forms an opinion and spouts off about it on the air. Ed Hardin finds a topic that interests him, forms an opinion and writes about it in the sports pages. Hardin doesn't necessarily do a bunch of research on his chosen subject. Sometimes he does, I'm sure, but not all the time.

I don't think you would dispute the notion that Ed Hardin is a journalist and neither would I. I think that's why the public might see Limbaugh as a journalist, too.

Mitch Albom is a document liar, too. And he's a journalist.

At some point, the definition of "journalist" gets down to something approaching the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, Jason. I think of journalism as a function that pretty much anyone CAN do at any time. I think of someone as "being a journalist" if journalism is their primary professional responsibility, but almost anyone can function as a journalist at times, and over the course of our lives many of us do. Which, I've said many times before, is probably what the framers of the Constitution intended -- it has just taken the technology this long to make it possible.

*MY* take -- i.e., purely my opinion, something with which anyone is free to disagree -- is that Rush is something a bit different from an ordinary columnist, inasmuch as he has lied so much and so often that it has to be intentional. "Propagandist" (a particularly insidious subspecies of "flack") might be a better word.

Ed Hardin frequently functions as a journalist. He also frequently functions as an entertainer. Sometimes he does both in the same column. Ditto Lorraine Ahearn.

Even Rush, as much as he lies, could function as a journalist IF he did original reporting, then told people accurately what he had found out in the belief that his doing so would benefit the public at large. But, as he himself has made clear, that ain't his gig. Of course, he could be lying. :-)

Lex,

It's obvious that you dislike Rush, but I think it's interesting how much you really refuse to understand that the media has brought the perception of him being a journalist on themselves.

He provides information that no one hears anywhere else -- and it's very credible information (even if he "lies" all the time).

Anyone who is going to deliver a message that other "real," "serious" Journalists (with a capital J) AREN'T going to, is going to be perceived as a journalist -- even if they aren't.

I just love the juxtoposition of this post with the post about Journalists being perceived as arrogant. You've proven your point!!!

All of these STUPID blogs go out of their way to say "everyone is a journalist" -- and now you've been told people (certainly people you think are stupid) think that someone you dislike is a journalist. The irony is JUST TOO MUCH!

Jim, welcome back.

First, it is in no way the news media's fault that anyone who lies as often as Rush does is popular. All that shows is that there's a market for comforting lies. Michael Moore is in the same racket, but his reach appears to be much less.

Second, Rush does NOT provide information that appears nowhere else. The information he provides (as opposed to his commentary on the information) appears in the Washington Times, on Fox News, on Drudge and other conservative blogs, all over minor-league talk radio, and on and on and on. I might be wrong, but I don't think the man has broken an actual news story in his entire career. Given that doing so isn't in his job description, I don't say that as criticism of him but merely to point out that you're claiming something that isn't accurate.

And it's just my opinion, but the fact that a lot of people THINK he's a journalist doesn't make him a journalist. The fact that a lot of people have been going out of their way to blur the distinction at all points on the political spectrum doesn't get him, or his audience, off the hook.

I'm not sure what you mean in your claim about proving my point. I went back and looked at that post, and I agree with the Cline points I quoted. In what way have I behaved "arrogantly" as Cline defines it? "We teach students to be arrogant when we fail to teach them that the public always knows more than they do"? I take that to mean that there are a lot of people in the public who know more than a reporter does about any given subject he's covering and that that reporter would be wise to find and consult with such people in writing stories, and in such big-picture issues as defining his mission and so forth. And I support that position, as I've said repeatedly.

But I DON'T think Cline means that disagreeing with the public automatically equates to arrogance, which appear to be what you're arguing here. Correct me if I've misunderstood. And, of course, just because a large segment of the public thinks something doesn't make it true.

And I'm also unsure what you mean in your last graf. I've never called blogs stupid for claiming that everyone is a journalist. (Or are you saying any blog that claims that is stupid? I'm unclear.) And I've never claimed that everyone is a journalist, I don't think. I have said that pretty much anyone can function as a journalist, which isn't quite the same thing and remains accurate so far as I know.

If you want to accuse me personally of arrogance, feel free. If feeling morally superior to somebody whose occupation is hypocritical liar -- be it Rush Limbaugh or Jayson Blair -- makes me arrogant, yeah, I'll cop to that. Heck, I'll even cop to it in a Rush-free context; I can be a real ass some days. (Just ask JR.) But I do recognize one thing that I'm pretty sure Rush doesn't: On any given day, you can learn from anyone. Anyone. Particularly in this line of work. And for 21 years, I've found that phenomenon too neat to walk away from without a better reason than money.

As far as disliking Rush, I don't dislike him for his political content. I dislike him because he's a lying hypocrite.

Wow. A lot to respond to here.

First, I don't think Rush is a liar. You reference some book that says he is and I've never read it. Maybe he's gotten some facts wrong -- a three hour semi-scripted radio show each weekday over the course of a dozen years and someone is likely to get 100 facts wrong. Is he lying or just getting facts wrong? I don't know. Still, I'll buy that he's a total and complete liar. Everything he says is totally wrong.

He's still a journalist. He takes information, distills it and pours over new information, providing context and making it all relevant to new points of view. He periodically calls sources -- not often, but sometimes.

And he DOES provide a true point of view that does not appear elsewhere. Drudge does not provide commentary the way Rush does. Drudge does not present news and then break it down piece by piece and sound bite by sound bite to tell you want it really means. Rush does. That's the information you get only from Rush. Even Fox news doesnt do it like Rush.

I was referring to a post on a blog entry earlier down (not this thread) about arrogance. It's funny to see a discussion about arrogance followed by... you being arrogant! Hilarious!

And, yes, Rush does learn from other people. I have listened to him COUNTLESS times where callers do make him think and he will refine his point based on what they say.

The really funny thing about all of this is that I don't think you're any more a journalist than Rush is. If you think he's not, then you're certainly not. You have a blog in which you take snippets from other people's published work and then put pithy commentary around it. How is that journalism? Do you write anything for the paper any longer?

I also find it interesting that you're all for calling a homemaker or car mechanic a journalist for having a blog, but Rush can't be one? (Because he lies?)

If that's the case, is the N&R an institution of journalists? I recall more than a few lies it has published: Nussbaum debacle and the Finesilver-Death-by-Journalism Fiasco. (In theory any correction that had to be written was a lie, also, right?)

I might be cutting a bit below the belt, but c'mon.. If accuracy is the judge of whether someone is a journalist, watch out. Some people would perceive the N&R as a instituation of lies.. right? And, from your point, it's really all about perception. Perception IS reality.

Well, I think we agree that his commentary, such as it is, might well be unique.

Am I a journalist? By trade, yes; I've reported and edited full-time for most of the past 21 years. Does my current assignment involve journalism? Less on a day-to-day basis than other assignments I've had, but my main assignment right now is to work with my colleagues and the community to change the infrastructure through which the N&R commits journalism. When that assignment ends, I expect to return to day-to-day journalism. The blog is a minor sideline aimed primarily at keeping people posted on our progress, with a few other things thrown in for variety.

And once again, I'm not "all for calling a homemaker or car mechanic a journalist for having a blog." I'm saying something different: That anyone, with or without a blog, can function as a journalist -- which I define as gathering information with the intent to distribute that information to the wider community, for that community's benefit -- at some point.

As for N&R "lies," I wasn't involved in the Nussbaum case and can't speak to what happened there. But our RCC/Civil War coverage was accurate; we misattributed a quote and made one or two other minor mistakes (name misspelling, I think), but the substance of the story was correct.

The fact that some people might perceive the N&R as an "institution of lies" doesn't change the fact that the N&R tries, usually successfully, to report the facts. Rush frequently doesn't even try. And all the postmodern blather in the world won't change those facts.

I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a liar. And I don't think you could ever prove he is.
I understand you expressing your hate for a conservative commentator by trying to damage him in any way you can, but I think you're off the mark.
Limbaugh presents his show for what it is, entertainment. He's not a journalist, he's an editorialist, a commentator on mostly political matters.
Brokaw, Jennings, Koppel, etc. are not really "journalists" any more, except for when they fly off to a world shattering disaster to try and trump the ratings of the competition. They are "readers." They sit in front of a camera and read the news that other's have gathered.
Just because you hate Limbaugh's opinions, you're not justified in calling them "lies." If that were the case, I could call every editorial writer at the N&R a "liar" if I didn't agree with their opinion or assessment.
Nice try at smearing Limbaugh with the "drug addict" label. You remind me of John Kerry and his snide, elitist comment on VPresident Cheney's lesbian daughter.
I know many people who have become dependent on pain medication after back or joint surgery, even some professional people. Would you care to characerize every person on the N&R staff that has ever taken a "toke" on a marijuana cigarette as a "drug addict?" If so, that would be a pretty long list, wouldn't it? If your own house isn't clean, don't start pointing fingers at someone else just to try and destroy their reputation or character.

Maybe this doesn't prove anything about Rush Limbaugh, but mediamatters.org, keeps a running list of instances it says Limbaugh has strayed from the truth.

I looked at the website, Mark. Almost everything quoted involves Limbaugh's opinions on a subject, not lies.
If someone fabricates something, like Howard Dean, and Limbaugh comments on the story, does that make Limbaugh a liar? Hardly.

JayCeeNC, that's a dynamic page (i.e., exact content/format changes as content is added/edited/bumped down to next page), but on the page as it appears as of this comment, there are nine examples cited, seven of which pertain to Limbaugh's factually inaccurate statements and two of which go to opinion. I suppose the page might have been different at the time you looked.

Lex:

As I read the AP story you reference, 27 percent of respondents in the poll think Limbaugh is a journalist and 30 percent think Woodward is a journalist. Based on the poll results, more Americans do not "think Rush Limbaugh is a journalist than think Woodward is."

The math sort of undermines your argument, though I think your argument is a good one.

Journalists and bloggers alike do well to pay as much attention to the facts as to the conclusions they build upon those facts.