Could you elaborate, OP?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sure. I meant that there's so much coverage about things like celebrities and their personal issues that it sort of makes you wonder about the institution of journalism and what is becoming of it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Agreed. Journalism used to be a form of art. Now it's just a fight for ratings and views. I absolutely HATE hearing about the Kardashians.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd still say journalism, no matter what topic, is a form of art. You have to learn to write in a completely different way than you've been taught your whole life, you have to go out and interview, which takes guts, you have to research, and then you have to actually sit down and write or design a graphic. Stories, unless they're quick news updates, are carefully crafted. Every adjective, every verb, every image is placed with purpose. It's still an art, trust me. Just because an artist chooses to paint a bra rather than the president, does that mean it's not art? The content doesnt dictate the process.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I mean, yeah, there's a lot of celebrity coverage, but that's what people want to hear and people want to hear is what makes companies money. You have to remind yourself that media outlets are companies just like any Wal-Mart or Red Robin--they need money--and they use the nosy nature of humans to get their profit. Of course, it isn't ALL about money, which is why there are still headlines on important issues (namely in magazines geared towards mid-aged businessmen and women who actually care). It's still there as a watchdog (and it most DEFINITELY watchdogs, doesn't it?), but because of how many media outlets and mediums there are, different companies are forced to compete. That's capitalism at its finest.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I second your notion. I am thoroughly confused.

by Anonymous 11 years ago