Journalism is not one; it comes in different genres, and it ranges from the upward preaching type of saying the truth to holding power responsible, to the downward yellow ones that elevate gossip and side talks to tabloid production.
In journalism, there is market for the serious and often tyrannically academic writing and the not so serious writings that appeals to girlish behaviour of excessive consumerism.
In journalism, Tom writes for Dick and Henry consumes what suits him. As such, journalism doesn’t give moral pedestals for Tom to query why Harry refuses to read his serious stuff. Journalism doesn’t appeal to a block market, it segments the market and appeals to each segment with targeted journalistic products.
Therefore:
Those practicing journalism as the fourth realm asides executive, judiciary and legislature are doing their job so do those practicing journalism for comic relief, each is within its realm and cannot substitute the needs for the other.
That’s why I don’t talk down to an advocacy journalist as much as I don’t over value a churnalist. They each pursue their different callings and as Immanent Critique calls for, one methodology isn’t enough to box all social realities and give them one size fits all interpretation and analysis.
Perhaps, that’s why I sat back read different pieces from a teacher of journalism, who sees journalism through a different prism and his student of journalism who sees journalism through another different prism.
While the teacher tried to fuse religious and cultural maxims to fit modern day journalism practice, the student aspires to practice journalism as a complete moral code that speaks truth to power, not minding even if the power is held forth for the ideals of religion.
Well, I won’t apportion blame to either the teacher or the student. Rather, I’d have love it if both the teacher and student had explained their paradigms. Studies in philosophy of knowledge and research, particularly axiological studies have clearly established that no writer, no scholar and no knowledge comes without hidden value systems, that even truth itself is value laden.
That teacher of journalism (is he actually a teacher of journalism or mass communication?) who’s also risen to become a professor of mass communication may be right if perused from his own axiological leanings. The student also may be right if examined from his own personal axiological leanings.
Then, where did the problem of fire rattling write-ups and rejoinders between a teacher and his student emanated from? Simply put, it was from the use of different methodologies to diagnose and prescribe one social phenomenum. Certainly, findings, interpretations and discussions must differ.
Indeed, the duo may not see the truth as one, but then they should also appreciate that there are many truths: my truth, your truth, his truth, their truth and the truth of the truth.
That’s why I make bold to call on both the teacher and his student to use pragmatism and appreciate the truth that each of them brings to the table and forge ahead. Let there be thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, that’s the way of the social world, that’s the way of social reality, and that’s the way we come together to disagree in order to agree. Doing that would certainly make them stronger in journalism.
