I'm beginning to think journalists have a human interest bias that runs really deep, deeper than mere schmaltz.
Their fundamental project is to make history relevant to the little guy (no problems there), but also make the little guy relevant to history (dubious undertaking).
Conversation
Replying to
What kind of journalists? Data journalists? Fashion editors? White House correspondents? There's no such thing as a journalist.
1
2
Replying to
All of them actually. People who ground narratives in talking to living people and/or responding to live events, with ideas playing a supporting and mostly backstage role at best.
Replying to
Well.
First part of your definition (talking to living people) IMHO fits for about half of the people that see themselves as journalists. Maybe less.
Second part of your definition (not interested in ideas) is true for >90% in ALL professions - but only for 80% of journalists
1
1
Replying to
Well the second part is true of 90% in a different way: trying to change to become more relevant. The difference with journalists is that they try to do it to 3rd parties without changing them, ie, given them a story where they're more relevant without actually changing.

