The Daily of the University of Washington

Staff editorial


I want to be a journalist— specifically, a reporter who works for a newspaper. I’ve resigned myself to the idea that I’m not going to make a lot of money and if the naysayers are right, I’m going to be out of a job in 10 to 20 years.

Every journalism class that I’ve entered at the University has had discussions regarding the future of our dream careers. Sometimes it looks pretty bleak.

Community newspapers are going through hard times, local community college newspapers are dying and even the two local dailies, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Seattle Times, have lost significant numbers in readership.

So why would I, or anyone, want to get into this field?

Let me get on my soapbox.

Good journalism, the kind that is objective, has multiple sources and investigates both sides, is a fundamental part of democracy. While it’s great that blogs have allowed anyone to enter the marketplace of ideas, they are not a replacement for responsible journalism that seeks to keep governments accountable, shares people’s stories and engages readers in thinking about the larger world.

I want to be a journalist because I believe that good journalism and good newspapers are essential for us to be successful in our communities, in our cities and in our governments. Newspapers seek to keep citizens informed and that’s a powerful thing. Some of the most corrupt and failing nations are ones that severely limit freedom of the press.

Sometimes I daydream that it’s the 1970s, in the middle of the Watergate scandal and people are dropping out of law school to become journalists. Back then, newspapers were delivered to every home, and most people didn’t leave the house without reading the daily edition.

However, it is 2008 and now most newspapers are online. Journalism isn’t as popular a career, and many homes don’t receive a daily paper. Many newspapers have compensated for this loss of print readership by adapting, with expansive Web pages and their own blogs.

I hope that as newspapers adapt to online formats, it doesn’t mean the end of devoted readers. I also hope that in the future, people continue to seek out news sources — online or elsewhere — and value responsible journalism. Above all, I hope that newspapers will still have the money to hire qualified journalists, ones that will care about the importance of good journalism.

[Reach columnist Erica Cederlind at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]


1 Comments

#1 Camp
(UW Campus | Unverified Name)

on April 8, 2008 at 10:09 p.m.
Report this comment

The implication you're making - that blogs aren't "good" or "responsible" journalism - strikes me as biased. Remember, it was a bunch of blogs that uncovered Dan Rather's phony Bush memos and the whole Scott Beauchamp debacle at The New Republic.

Blogs serve an important purpose in today's media; they are to news what cable channels are to television. Blogs serve to narrowcast the news, focusing on one or two topics and presenting it to a specific audience. Traditional media serve to broadcast the news, presenting news in such a way as to try and appeal to everyone. Blogs are read by people with knowledge of the topic at hand and their own blogs to update, and when a blog gets it wrong there are twenty other blogs to tell them they got it wrong. For blogs, getting the information wrong poses a much bigger threat than it does to traditional media sources. When a newspaper gets something wrong, they print a tiny correction on page Z32 right after the obituaries, and that's if anyone bothered to even notice. When a blog gets it wrong, their very readership and online reputation could go down the drain in an instant.

Just because a blogger didn't spend four years at a University to get permission to work with the traditional media doesn't mean they're dishonest or irresponsible.


Post a comment

Name:


(None, None | Unverified Name)
Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: