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).
-
-
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
-
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.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.