Does -proper...

does -proper, classical- journalism require more versatile knowledge than any other well-established profession in the world?
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about magazine journalists or even the average newspaper journalist, I'm talking about the journalist that uncovers and chronicles major world events with complete context.

To be a good –anything, you need to get good at it, so yeah, sure.

Not what I asked. If you want to be good at coding you need to be good at coding. You need to understand your library of code and how to implement it to create a function you desire.
To be good at math you need to be good at the functions of math, logic and creative perspective.
The point is that with journalism, to get proper work done you need not just be investigative, you need to be a diplomat, you need to be a writer, you need to be extremely politically literate(on a level politicians have no need to be), a risk-taker, a philosopher, brave, often physically fit, a historian, and more
My question is, is it the ultimate renaissance profession?
It goes without saying that you need to be good at something to be good at it. I don't see how you got that from my post

*Renaissance man profession

>does -proper, classical- journalism require more versatile knowledge
Yes
>...than any other well-established profession in the world?
No, not necessarily.
I do see what you meant now, sorry for the terse and stupid answer. It is a multifaceted profession and it would of course be good to know all these different aspects of it, or just know a lot of people who could help you out with them.

Being a journalist nowadays basically means being a good shill and having connections

>proper, classical.

>I'm talking about the journalist that uncovers and chronicles major world events with complete context.
might as well call him a contemporary historian then

journalists nowadays are nothing short of propagandists. from the lowly magazine to The Economist or the WSJ, its all about parroting the prepackaged sources or writing the "opinion piece" with all the acceptable talking points and opinions

Proper, classical journalism never really existed. Some writers have managed to do interesting stuff with it though. Some of the eXiles' stuff is gold

No and there's no such thing as "proper, classical" journalism. That's a highly romanticized notion of the job that never existed. Pulitzer and Hearst were scum. It's always been a profession for pushy bastards out to make a buck by spinning things for the average shmuck reader.

>tfw user in going through the phase were he thinks a more cynical world view is necessarily a more correct one
It's ridiculous to suggest that there have never existed deeply principled, investigative people that made it their profession to uncover and publicize important knowledge to the public.

>"informing" people
right up there with common suffrage as one of the dumbest mistakes ever.

that sure is edgy. and the idea that giving women basic common agency being bad goes against all data we have on the introduction of it. It improves the state of the community in pretty much any measure we consider positive.

>tfw user is going through the phase where he generalizes everything to the point of retardation
Individuals like that may have existed but they've always been rare and entirely unrepresentative of what an average journalist was like. They're more of a stock character trope in books, TV shows and movies than an actual thing. It's never been a respectable profession 99% of the time.

Sentient Life Was A Mistake

b8 or foreveralone either way robot pls go

i didnt say womens suffrage you mong

people like you should have farmed wheat instead of gone to school.

I never meant to imply that it was ever the status quo for the profession. When I say classical journalist I refer to a classical conceptualization/understanding of the profession, not what it actually was. There's a difference between what people associate with a word and what the people using the title do. You could say a classic samaritan is one who is exhaustively benevolent, but that doesn't necessitate that all who fashion themselves as good samaritans are actually what they claim. But that doesn't mean that the word in its classical sense isn't something you can actually be and it doesn't mean that the word has no meaning. Sorry for the long sentences, I've been up for quite a while and running on a lot of coffee.

It's part of common suffrage though. either way my statement holds up.

seriously? you can't deny things would be better if the vote was restricted to property owning white men. that's how the founders envisioned it, take it away and the ideals of liberty and small government are well on the way to the dustbin of history. people who actually, you know, work are soon going to be de facto enslaved to ghetto blacks and transgender welfare beneficiaries, muzzled by orwellian 'hate speech' laws. and worst thing is, we could have stopped it. but you didn't listen

ah so it was bait after all

2/10

>seriously? you can't deny things would be better if the vote was restricted to property owning white men.
Denied. The case was also never really that clearcut. But yes, definitely, that has never shown to be a better system.
And the founders were wrong about many things. Equal opportunity and expression are deeply rooted elements of liberty, by making such a non-meritocratic system you have already taken a huge leap away from most notions of liberty.
I'd like to note that I only got to
>seriously? you can't deny things would be better if the vote was restricted to property owning white men. that's how the founders envisioned it, take it away and the ideals of liberty and small government are well on the way to the dustbin of history.
When I started responding and at that point I thought you were serious, or at least reasonable enough to deserve a sincere response.

so you drank the democracy kool aid

w-who are you responding to family?

I was responding to --

I would argue that the self-awareness required to remain an objective observer is more important, but agree that a wide knowledge is also important.

he's not wrong tho

no it doesnt.
own up to your fuckups

Yes it does. I'll gladly admit that I made a mistake though, but my point still stands.

Where to begin with this dumb question...
Your arbitrary "proper, classical" distinction is setting the bar way too high. It's an easy way out for you to dismiss anything that refutes your claim. ("Oh, well that's not proper, classical journalism") Can you provide a specific example of the type of journalism you are referring to, at least?

>you need to be a diplomat
>you need to be extremely politically literate(on a level politicians have no need to be)
>a philosopher
>often physically fit
I question these. Why do you need to he more politically literate than a politician? What about "proper, classical" politicians. kek.

>What about "proper, classical" politicians. kek
Proper classical politicians are still more associated with oratory, deceit and populist appeal than understanding of the system. And if we go far enough back, warfare.
And because if you want to write about a system meaningfully you need to understand all facets of it.

as for examples, you could pick David Abrams or Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens will probably be remembered as a neocon shill

Well then he would be remembered incorrectly.

If you created a genuinely artful videogame by yourself you'd easily qualify as a renaissance man.

Toby did it

It's not that hard. And the necessity of being distanced from your story might be a misguided moral.