What's the difference between a blogger and a journalist/critic (and no this isn't the beginning to one of the world's most tedious jokes)? This question is one that has featured in my life a couple of times in the last week. First I read an article in the paper by a journalist and critic trying to distinguish between the two. A few days later a whole chapter of the book I'm reading was dedicated to differentiating between food bloggers and restaurant critics. So what is the difference?
Well the most obvious difference is that journalists (and for the time being, read "journalists" as critics two since they are fairly similar for the purposes of this debate) get paid for their work and bloggers don't. Except that's not quite true. It is possible to make money from blogs. Equally lots of journalists, especially those starting out, work for free. Another way to define it could be that journalists generally work for organisations whereas bloggers don't. However freelance journalists knock out this argument. Although they sell their stories to bigger organisations, they work for themselves.
Now let's get a bit more subtle. First let's remove publishing medium from the equation since blogs exist exclusively on the internet. An obvious difference, to me at least, is that journalists have to abide by a code of conduct and professional ethics and have probably had training in this. Bloggers don't. Beyond the laws of the country governing things like defamation, what I write is essentially unregulated (let's forget what's going on in the British press for the time being). This doesn't mean that bloggers disregard truth and reliable information. I know that when I write something I claim to be true I like to be able to back it up (even if I don't explicitly do so) and try to highlight any opinions expressed as such. I'm sure many other bloggers do as well, my point is that we do this voluntarily rather than have it forced upon us.
Another distinguishing feature of journalists (broadly speaking) is their use of language. Words are their business and they need to be able to use them well. That's not to say that bloggers can't use English but there is inevitably a difference between those who write all day for a living and those that do it in their spare time. It's similar to a keen amateur cook taking on a professional chef. The regularity with which the respective skills are used comes into play on both counts. In my job, I can get by on a vocabulary of at most a couple of hundred words. This means my linguistic dexterity is not taxed as much or as often as someone who writes for a living.
So for a quick recap, we have established that journalist are paid for their work, are governed by a professional code of ethics and have an ability with language sufficient to make what they write worth paying to read.
Now let's have a look at the sub-division of journalism; critics. Surely it's more accessible because it's just venturing opinions and everyone has opinions don't they? Well yes. But, as always, it's not quite that simple. The newspaper article I read argues that critics are marked out by their high level of subject knowledge and extensive experience of their chosen area. A good example of this came from a passage in Giles Coren's book 'How to Eat Out'. As a reasonable person on a tolerable income I eat out about once a month. When I do, it's generally pub grub or a low level restaurant. Mr Coren (restaurant critic for the Times) however will eat out around twice a day most days. Who therefore has greater experience of eating out? Similarly a car critic will get to try a new car every week or two. Now compare that to me; in 10 years of driving I can pretty much list every car I've ever driven. This means that any opinion I express is perfectly valid as my opinion and may well be interesting and informative depending on what you're looking for but that of a professional critic is likely to be more helpful when deciding where to eat, what kind of car to get, what to go and see at the cinema, etc.
The level of experience is a bit of a double edge sword. On one hand, the professional critic will be so used to their subject matter that they can concentrate on important (though not necessarily obvious) details that others may fail to spot. On the other, it may lead to them treating with blaze indifference things that would blow anybody else's socks off. In all this we must also bear in mind that opinions, regardless of how well informed, are still essentially subjective and you may not agree with the reviewer.
Typically I have polarized the issue between two extremes. Simplistically, a journalist is someone who is paid to report and/or form opinions. They do this full time with regulated levels of behaviour and attitudes and in conjunction with a degree of base knowledge and experience that is probably not as readily available to the average man on the street. Bloggers generally write in their spare time based on more limited personal experience.
Is one worth more than the other? On the face of it, yes since people are prepared to pay for the work of journalists (excluding free content on line). Journalists are certainly the people you go to if you want representations of fact that can be backed up or opinions that are based on extensive experience however, if you want to interrogate a subject further and you're prepared to expend a bit of effort thinking critically about the source, then I would argue blogs have a place too.
JR
No comments:
Post a Comment