That's more a bald assertion than an argument, but it beats the usual refrain that expecting payment for your work is an "old economy" anachronism. Deirdre Harvey :: Web Producer :: BBC Newsline :: Newsroom :: BBC Broadcasting House :: Ormeau Avenue :: Belfast BT2 8HQ :: ph. 02890 338264
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 November 2007 12:11 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage Journalists in terms of national newspapers and national broadcasters aren't needed in modern society. We could easily and happily do without them. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Deirdre Harvey Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:48 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage ________________________________ 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?