________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows,
one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of
journalism as a public service rather than to make money.
So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will
have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or
shelter?
Strange definition of elitism - one I have never heard
before - if the result of what you want really meant that everyone got
"the best of everything" then I would support it - but if all that
happens is a small group of people like yourselves benefit and everybody
else loses out then we will be no further forward
Not the best of everything, but the best of anything, i.e. the
cream of the crop, the best of the best etc. That's the result I want,
the best of everything gives you mediocrity.
You're not one of those people who moans about Oxford and
Cambridge being elitist are you? That's the whole point! Elite means
best of the best, and we only want the best of the best going there. In
the same way I only want the best of the best on my PC. That means I
have to be elitist.
But you don't want the best of journalism? Or you think you can
get the best journalists by telling them to work for free?
Should anyone (other than, presumably, the technologists) be
paid for their work?
Why should people who do important jobs in the public interest
not get paid? My father has worked very hard his entire life as a
teacher in an inner city school. He thinks his job matters and takes his
work very seriously but he wouldn't have done it if they hadn't paid
him. You know, what with kids to support etc.
If you think journalism isn't important to society then make
that argument. If you think it is, then why blithely assume that other
people should do that important work for nothing?
