I thought it was interesting that both Luker and Knight made a comparison between researchers and journalists. Luker says that "journalists tell us the who, what, where, and when, but only sociologists tell us the why" (p.55) Though I think oftentimes journalists also include a "why", I find this much more palatable than Knight's argument that researchers serve "higher ideals" than journalists (p.16). Now, to be fair, Knight quotes Seale as saying that, but he seems to agree. I see journalists serving "higher ideals" all the time, exposing all sorts of things that otherwise would remain out of public knowledge realm. How can one say that a person like Christiane Amanpour does not serve "higher ideals"? And if we want to go all postmodern, what are "higher ideals", anyway?
I do agree with the fact that journalists probably spend less time on any given topic, and perhaps don't delve into it as deeply. I just didn't like Searle talking about journalists as scandal mongerers and entertainers.
I do agree with the fact that journalists probably spend less time on any given topic, and perhaps don't delve into it as deeply. I just didn't like Searle talking about journalists as scandal mongerers and entertainers.
Hi Polina,
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a good point! There are some journalists who publish for their own self-serving purposes, who may not be interested in serving those "higher ideals" that you mentioned. But there are others who present significant issues and the impact they have on greater society. I also agree with you that Searle may have gone too far in his description of journalists. Thank you for sharing this idea with us.
Polina, I think I read the quotation from Seale a little differently than you did. I personally tend to agree that sociologists, and social scientists in general, tend to explain the "why." I absolutely think that people like Christiane Amanpour, serve "higher ideals". However, I think that it is difficult for journalists to put knowledge of theory or method into an article or broadcast because it is usually more brief than a published academic journal article or monograph. Studies published by social scientists, I think, are better to explain the "why" because the researches are able to spend the time to understand and explain major themes in the field, and build on earlier studies. Furthermore, they are (usually) peer-reviewed, which is important to academic study, and something journalists do not do. Journalists, I think, are more than capable of this if given the time to write a lengthy article or monograph.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, in a fourth year history seminar each person in the class had a week to present a book review on a historical monograph to see how it fit into the historical literature on the topic. One of the books for review was Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America by Eric Larson. It was the only text on the list that was not written by a historian, but a journalist. Although I did not have to read the book for class (only the person reviewing the text had to), I later read it for fun. The professor even mentioned that although it was not written by a historian, it was a good story, and was well told. The author clearly had time to research the story. However, it was not written like traditional historical monographs that would build off of a canon of other historical theories and works. This is one example, and obviously not all monographs by journalists may be written like this, but there seems to be a difference. I personally think it is because of the audience - academics write for other academics to insert themselves into the literature, while journalists tend to write for the general public.
I agree that Seale is perhaps a little harsh, but could it be 'academic' writing separating itself from journalism? If there is an established dichotomy, what happens if/when the lines are crossed? Does journalism then diminish 'academia'?