I have started a new job! I am an American working for a large Chinese company that does business reporting. I am the second-level editor of the English-language section of our news bureau; I make sure that all our translated articles are beautiful and fit to print.
I don’t do any actual composition, and we don’t write any real analysis or anything like that - everything we write has to be either hard fact (today this stock gained this many points), or a faithful reporting of someone else’s analysis (Mr. X of Y company said this and that and this and that.)
But in light of the fact that I work in a genuine newsroom, am I within my rights, if someone asks me at a cocktail party what I do, to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, I am a journalist?’
ETA: That original last line was, ‘am I a journalist?’ Obviously, that’s not what I’d say.
It’s not as straightforward a matter as people might think. I’ve seen journalists get worked up because their business card said they were a reporter instead of journalist (or vice-versa), so in some cases whether or not you are a journalist can be Serious Business.
Traditionally, being a journalist involves interviewing people, researching information, analysing things and writing copy about it. What you’re doing sounds closer to being a sub-editor (which is a perfectly noble profession in itself) or something in design
Also, journalists are (at least theoretically) party to particular ethical standards (you might hear people go on about the Fourth Estate too), and nowadays most journalists have a professional qualification such as a degree or a diploma in the subject.
The short answer to your question, I would suggest, is “Not really” - but having said that, I don’t think anyone’s going to get too worked up over it.
Aww, schade. Well, if someone asks, I’ll just say that I ‘work in journalism.’
If I was a more general editor, not working in translation, but still wholly behind my desk touching on stories written by other people, would I then be a journalist?
Arguably, especially if you’d worked your way to the editorial desk via being a reporter or something like that.
Having said that, if you were a general editor sitting behind your desk editing stories, you’d be an editor - which is actually higher up in the scheme of things anyway.
The thing is, “Being a journalist” is a nuanced thing and there’s still a lot of argument over what qualifies. While most people accept it’s no longer “A guy in a hat with a flashbulb camera and a notebook”, quite where the new definition is hasn’t been universally agreed upon yet.
You are an editor, considered a profession in and of itself. If I asked you what you do, you should reply, “I am an editor.” After that, you can qualify what you edit if expounding on it is called for.
Because being a ‘journalist’ has some kind of cachet; it’s a glamorous career, or at least it can be readily idealized as such. There’s an artistry of it; it receives prizes.
Being an ‘editor,’ on the other hand, just connotes looking at other people’s heartfelt stories and telling them that they use too many commas - or in my case, fixing inane grammar mistakes over and over all day.
If that’s how you feel, then take steps to become an actual journalist. If you tell people now that you are a journalist, then you will be flat-out lying, and how impressed do you think people will be with you when they find that out?
This is another good question, especially considering one reputable publication (Reader’s Digest) recently ranked journalists as being less trustworthy than lawyers and not much more trustworthy than sex workers and real estate agents. Seriously.
I promise you, there’s very little glamour in modern journalism, despite what TV and movies might have you believe.
That’s a *sub-*editor, and they’re the reason your [Reputable newspaper of choice] has consistent spelling, style and so on. It’s actually an involved and under-appreciated job.
Being an editor denotes some power (you have ultimate say over what does and doesn’t get published) and, at least in the print media, says you’re in charge of something at a newspaper. That is a Good Thing.
Bawww, considering how often we reprint articles from Xinhua, I can soothe my conscience in lying about my job if my job is to tell lies - or, at least, to accurately report on the lies others tell.
Well, henceforth, if anyone asks, I’m an editor at a business news agency.
These days, if someone asks me what I do for a living I tend to go for something less controversial. I just say I work in an animal-testing lab for a cosmetics company.
Honestly, that sounds a lot more impressive in these days of watered-down and jacked-up journalism. Paparazzi photogs call themselves journalists, bloggers call themselves journalists, and even some YouTube “news” people call themselves journalists. None of them really are, with no corporate accountability or backing, and the definition has become muddied and sullied. You really don’t want to have to explain yourself after claiming to be a journalist. I hear someone claim that, and I have a lot of skepticism and questions for them. Someone tells me they’re an editor at a business news agency and I say, “that sounds cool.”
Indeed. I know a fair share of Western journalists over here – both real and semi-real – and while a handful are good professionals, most seem to be rather dodgy characters.
A person working in any editorial-side (newsroom) role is a journalist. I have been a journalist for 24 years. During that time, I have been a writer, editor, copy editor, proofreader, broadcaster at the professional, internship, and student levels. If you are involved in the process of creation, editing, assigning content at any stage, and you are doing it for a reputable journalistic source, you are a journalist, whatever your specific role is.
I agree with the above, however, this is one of those cases where I think the person’s intent to use the word is more important than the textbook definition of the word.
If someone takes great pride in being an editor, to improve the quality of the news by rigidly analyzing both the style and content of written articles, to better convey matters of interest to the reader, I wouldn’t bat an eyelash at an editor describing themselves as a journalist. If he were challenged as to his work, he could make an almost unassailable case that he is, in fact, part of the profession.
But the OP seems to have little regard for his current job and wants to use the term journalist to leave an inaccurate impression of the work he actually does. That seems to mean that he’s letting other people assume that he’s a sexy war correspondent with visas to fifty countries, great teeth and a bomber jacket, who once filed a story using nothing but a paperclip, a maglite, and the assistance of a stringer mysteriously called only “The Fez.”
Well, maybe he doesn’t go that far, but the intent seems to be to leave people with the wrong impression of what he does. Unless he starts believing he’s a real journalist, I believe the OP would be somewhat misleading to describe himself as a journalist.
Since I don’t ultimately get any control (editorial control?) over the content of the news, and can’t express any discretion (editorial discretion?) over what gets published by my agency, I suppose there’s no real difference between my editing at a news source, and editing at, say, a magazine that produces short fiction.
No, I’ve learned my lesson here. Editing it is!
…
Well, okay. I work in publishing. But I work in the same building as journalism, though, just 12 stories higher.
