A Mac Web hot topic of the past week has been journalistic and philosophical professionalism. Dave Schultz and Michael Munger got the ball rolling with their collaborative piece entitled: "A Plea for Real Journalism and Thinking on the Web."

Munger is a trained and practicing journalist, and Schultz a trained and practicing academic philosopher Their stated motivation for writing their Philippic was "a problem, and we see it all over the Web: Sloppy thinking and sloppy writing, which are the same, in the end. Good thinking means good writing."

"Thus," they declare, "while it might seem strange that a journalist and philosopher approach this subject together, it is entirely natural. Journalists research and write, philosophers research and think... In fact, what marks the distinction between a self-proclaimed journalist or philosopher, at least one thing, is that the sentences written and the thoughts thought expressed are so done with blood and tears -- they are a part of him, they spring from his nature and his guts, not merely his training. To the philosopher, his work is a CRAFT, not a hobby or something that comes easily. Philosophy, and journalism, is something people do not merely do — they are characteristics people possess. Neither is merely an activity, they are instead ways of being."

So far, I concur.

Schultz defines a philosopher, in part, as someone who reads very difficult works by Plato, Kant, and Kierkegaard, trying to find answers. He in fact worries a great deal, for worry is the birth of philosophy." Well, I've read bits of Plato and Kant, and quite a lot of Kierkegaard, indeed trying to find answers, but I would never describe myself as a philosopher in any formal sense. A philosophy buff perhaps.

Dave and Michael go on to address the issue of credentials.

"As for training, we don't want to say that one HAS to have training to be either. It is certainly required in many ways, and there is no doubt about that. Charles W. Moore has no formal training as a journalist, yet history and his work shows that he has the right stuff."

Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys!

However, I always feel a bit hesitant about referring to myself as a "journalist." for, as my friends Dave and Michael note, I have no formal journalistic training, although I'll note quickly that neither did a great many of the most successful journalists of the past century. The fact that I have made my living for the past 15 years writing for, and in a few cases editing, for 50 or so different newspapers, magazines, and more recently, Websites, in four countries plus cyberspace, must, I suppose, make me some sort of journalist. However, I am more comfortable referring to myself as a "writer," because "journalist" carries with it the baggage of implication that I subscribe to a certain *formula* of professional methodology and ethics, which I don't necessarily. Being a journalistic auto-didact, I have the luxury of defining my own formulae in this regard.

I hasten to add here that I make a serious, and I hope consistent, effort to be ethical in all aspects of my life, including my work, but that the ethical standards I try to adhere to are not necessarily what might be inferred from professing to be a" journalist."

One such assumption would be the notion of "journalistic objectivity," a topic on which I have debated Michael Munger in the past. It's not that I want to be held to a lower standard than other wordsmiths, but rather that I do not believe that journalistic objectivity is possible.

Michael argues:

"Journalists do not bring personal bias or personal conflicts into their work (or at least they try hard not to); so-called journalists on the Web do, they air their dirty laundry for all to see and turn writing into an excuse for venting or attacking others."

I can agree with much of that statement. Professionalism requires a degree of detachment. But I'm not convinced that "personal bias" can, or even should be attempted to be, purged from one's journalistic output.

Michael continues:

"Journalists attempt to observe reality as it is. They want you to view everything through their eyes and writing, without their personal intervention (tough to do!). They possess objectivity, as far as they can, not subjective expression. Think of binoculars...

"Can you resist the pro-corporate viewpoint? Can you resist and this one is where most people fail — the temptation to believe the anti-corporate viewpoint, too? Can you, in all honesty, walk on the fine line of objectivity and call the shots as you see them? Can you realize that reality is never in the extremes exposed by people and correct them all at the same time? To do that, you need to see what's right and what's wrong in everything. Reality is neither black nor white. Can you be that critical? Can you do that despite the pressures of interests groups and mostly, live with the truth's lack of political correctness?"

In those assertions I find things to criticize. I would say "impossible to do." For example, my ongoing critique of Microsoft and its software is well-known and up-front. I try to be fair and open-minded, but I have also made a point of banishing all of the Microsoft software I had from my hard drive, and encouraging others to do likewise, at least by example. Some might perceive that as anti-Microsoft bias, and in some respects it is. It is not, however, unreasoned prejudice. Microsoft's raw and naked ambition to dominate and control the IT world and apparently in the near future the Internet as well, ruthlessly trampling underfoot any competitor who stands in their way, fills me with foreboding and apprehension. On top of that, the general crumminess of Microsoft software offends me.

Now, there is no way, no matter how much of an ethic of detached journalistic professionalism I might attempt to exercise and apply, that those strong personal biases are not going to color my approach to reporting on Microsoft-related issues. Would it be better for me to pretend that I do not harbor these biases? I think not. My motif is to declare them openly, so that readers can know exactly where I'm coming from and judge accordingly for themselves. And, if Microsoft does something I perceive as good and commendable, I am fully prepared to give them credit without prejudice.

One of the best and most insightful commentaries on this topic I have encountered is by John Fraser, from his book “Saturday Night Lives: Selected Diaries” (MacLelland and Stewart). Fraser was editor of Canada's Saturday Night magazine for seven years in the '80s and early '90s. Prior to that, he was a reporter and foreign correspondent for the Toronto Globe & Mail for 17 years. In his book, Fraser delivers a withering critique of journalism as it is currently practiced, and is especially caustic about the "journalistic objectivity" cult -- calling it “one of the vainest goals a humble craft ever set itself.”

“There is no such thing as a strictly objective story,” declares Fraser. “It isn’t possible. Everything -- from the structure of an article to the choice of facts is filtered through a particular outlook and a prejudiced mind.... The most you can hope for... is relative honesty. And the very best (ie: the most honest) journalists always let their readers know their specific prejudices and the general nature of the intellectual equipment through which they distill their stories.”

Michael Munger says that "becoming a journalist takes dedication. Journalism... has to be more than a job. It is NOT a job. It is a passion, a state of mind, a dedication, and a way of life. The career that comes with it, when you succeed, is not what you should aim at. The itch to write, the itch to learn, the itch to discover the truth and the itch to unveil reality as it is; that's what you should aim at."

John Fraser says that two basic traits distinguishing good journalists are “curiosity and a desire to communicate,” -- these channeled toward broad general knowledge, wide reading, and a few areas of specialization. Hey, that sounds like me to a tee. As Fraser puts it, reporting should be the “last safe redoubt of the generalist,” and all claims to a higher calling are “bunk.”

One Mac Web writer who took offense to Shultz and Munger's musings is Jon Bonner of MacSoldiers, who posted a rebuttal entitled "I am a journalist, I am a philosopher"

"…at least I am according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary," says Bonner

Journalist
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

Philosopher
1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER b : a student of philosophy

"Yet." Bonner observes, "according to Michael Munger and David Schultz, I am neither, and that offends me...

"In reality their argument is smack full of the same type of sentiments I constantly hear from those who consider themselves a part of some educationally elite class. 'I have a degree from the university, and I am better than you.' Oh, I'm sure that if you asked either Michael or David if this was the way they felt, you'd get an emphatic 'no.' They might even believe that is not their rationale. Nonetheless, what else could the purpose of the column be? Michael and David conclude their column by stating:

"'It is unfair when unqualified persons claim to be journalists and philosophers just because they want it that way.'"

Dan Knight of Low End Mac also posted a critique of Dave and Michael's piece, noting:

" I find it frustrating when journalists and philosophers try to elevate themselves as trained objectivists merely in search of truth...

" Who is worthy of the title journalist or philosopher? I've never claimed to be a journalist, but I did take every writing and journalism course available when I was in college. Nor do I claim to be a philosopher, although I have studied many philosophies from the Greek era through much of the 20th century. I'm just a writer with a B.A. in English, philosophy, and history; I don't label myself as a journalist or philosopher.

"But... If all perception is subjective, and interpretation is even more subjective, then isn't all philosophy and journalism likewise a subjective interpretation of subjective perceptions of an objective reality?

"What separates journalists, philosophers, judges, theologians, and the rest from the masses isn't objectivity -- it's methodology. Training doesn't remove our biases; if it did, we would have little to say that was important. What training does is clarify our biases, help us understand our personal leanings, and work from that knowledge. "True knowledge is self-knowledge."The problem with the press, with our schools, and with the Web isn't bias; it's pretended objectivity. That said, I respect those who know their subjectivity and wear it humbly."

I think that pretty much mirrors what I was trying to say above.

I wear two hats here at Applelinks. When I have on my columnist hat, as I do right now, it provides me considerable latitude for subjectivity, which is affirmed in the column's name -- "Moore's Views & Reviews."

Wearing my other, news editor hat, it is correctly assumed that I will be exercising considerably less subjectivity, but "objectivity?" I think not. Even when writing straight news stories, the choice of what I will include and exclude given the limitations of time ad space that obtain inevitably involves a substantial degree of subjective judgment, and, if you will, gatekeeping.

I try to be fair, and reasonably evenhanded, but ultimately, my biases, interests, and enthusiasms will play a significant role in determining what appears on the Applelinks news page under my byline each day, and I am convinced that is the same for any news editor in any field of reportage. Consequently, I would be much more comfortable with the term "journalistic discretion" than I am with "journalistic objectivity."

As for journalistic professionalism, there is no universal definition of what constitutes membership in the journalism profession. There is no real equivalent to, say, entry to the bar for lawyers, or medical board certification and medical society or association membership for physicians. Anyone with a pen, typewriter, or word processor can be a "journalist," especially in the Internet era. And if we have to err on one side or the other, my preference is strongly toward freedom of speech.

Some might set the threshold for membership in the club at possessing a journalism degree, but that would exclude a lot of really fine journalists, at least of the older generations, whose names you would probably recognize. Some might set it at being published for fee on a reasonably regular basis, or at deriving your principal livelihood from writing for periodical publications.

I would tend to define journalistic (or writing) professionalism as taking a businesslike approach to one's craft. When I review a piece of software or a book, often it will be application for which I personally have no particular interest or book I would preferably probably not have otherwise read, but the professional approach is to do one's best to evaluate it from the standpoint of the user who would have a need for it or interest in it. This is something I endeavor to do even if the subject of the review is not to my personal taste, and I try to keep my criticisms factual and topical.

Then there is the matter of advocacy. I have nothing against advocacy journalism, and in fact am quite enthusiastic about it when it is appropriate, so long as the advocacy is open and forthright.

However, the advocacy issue is especially tricky when riding in a contextual environment like the Mac Web. While it pretty much goes with the territory that Mac Web writers can be safely assumed to be aficionados of the platform, assumptions often go farther than that.

One of these assumptions is that "thou shalt not speak ill of Apple," and if one does, one is somehow a traitor to the "cause." A related assumption is that one should not write anything -- especially speculation, but in some instances even factual material -- that might negatively influence Apple's stock value. I submit that adhering to either or both of these assumptions is not journalistic professionalism, and that readers who make them are confusing journalism with public-relations writing.

In terms of advocacy, while of course I want Apple and developers who write software and manufacture peripherals for the Mac to do well, my self-affirmed first loyalty as a Mac Web writer is to what I perceive on the basis of journalistic discretion to be the best interests of the ordinary Mac user, a category which would encompass the bulk of my readership here. The ideal, and I think the most common circumstance is where the interests of all the players run parallel, but on the rare occasions where there are conflicts, my bias, here clearly stated, is to incline to the interest of the individual Mac consumer.

IMHO, honesty is the key to good writing. George Orwell said honest writers would admit to two motivations: "the habit of noticing unpleasant facts, and a desire to show off." I plead guilty on both counts, and one will rarely go wrong giving G.O. the last word.

Charles W. Moore

.