Neither did I mean an “establishment view of what journalism should be” by “journalism as a practice”, although the two obviously overlap to some extent. I meant it in the MacIntryrean sense of a “practice” with “internal goods” etc.

I look forward to reading the Guardian piece later today. This story, along with Amalia Gentlemans’ in old people’s homes, seems to suggest that there is some decent editorship of the type I wish to see over at The Guardian, except of course (as Kate notes) the work is not paid.

This does seem unacceptable. Is the NUJ aware of/challenging such practice? I know nothing of this world but it seems to be that it’s a bit like the parliamentary internship issue, now being taken up by UNITE, about a lot of young people seeking very few prized jobs and being squeezed to the limit to ‘make it’, while at the same time effectively excluding people without other incomes that allow them to survive (I think more so with internships, which are full-time with lots of overtime, but the principle still applies).

Sunny: I don’t think we are disagreeing that much. Tracing back, my OP was about the need to challenge the current orthodoxy that says piece’s like Kate’s lack validity because they are ‘small n’/not representative (though this orthodoxy is not felt to apply where the circumsntances suit a rightwing take). It was not about saying all other journalistic practice is invalid, but that is the way it has come to be interpreted through the commentary (and I have allowed it to).

I think we have a lot of common ground and the recent to and fro has helped clarify that.

On funding, I think we’ll have to agree to diagree on that for now, but my question would be: if funding is not needed, why are localised LibCons not springing up around the country?

On Pilger, I don’t think we should confuse Pilger 2009 with Pilger 1989, just as (as Don P points out) we should, if we are to be fair confuse the two vintages of Toynbee. Mind oyu, in Toynbee’s case, i’m mucg less inclined to be fair.

That the American government is seeking a solution to the problem of Iranian nuclear proliferation doesn’t seem to be in dispute. In fact the two articles don’t seem to be in dispute with each other at all.

Pilger concentrates on the military side, which isn’t addressed by the daily kos article. Side by side, it’s highly possible that the US has some military options it wants to consider (and didn’t I read a spending report this week outlining Pentagon spending to that end?) alongside the diplomatic options.

The nuclear question is not the only difference the US has with Iran, after all.

The polemic, the bizarre moral equivocation of Iranian proliferation with Israeli proliferation and so on – all of this is pretty ridiculous; it’s not factually incorrect, it’s just bad argumentation, allowing outrage to cloud the point he’s trying to make – which is that we may yet have to act to prevent a third major war, and the press aren’t exactly helping.

Is that particularly controversial?

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/10/iran-nuclear-pilger-obama

If you want to know what’s happening in Iran, far better to read someone actually informed on the issue:

http://plutonium-page.dailykos.com/

Well, then what exactly are we disagreeing over? One of the reason polemical journalism is paid higher is because people demand it and it’s read more highly. If you’re trying to make money – you may soon go down that road too.

, in general I think this kind of thing needs a kickstart of money to allow people getting involved a living wage over the first year or so while readership/advertising/sponsorship kicks in.

I disagree, because I think you spend the first year ironing out the mistakes and learning how audiences work. I would prefer to receive funding now than when I started Libcon because now I have a more focused direction.

I think that’s why I get so pissed off with the likes of Toynbee – such people DO have plenty of time, space and money, and do nothing with it except re-nose New Labour press releases

Kate – I disagree with Polly a lot of times. But I think our efforts would be better served trying to organise a populist alternative, and not just criticising people who don’t aren’t as radical as us.

I would only disagree with someone from the Labour party if they’re identifiably not being leftwing.

Tim f:
Because you’re embedded in a journalistic world much more than we are, you’re likely to have views about what makes good journalism…

to be clear: I’ve never undertaken a journalism course ever. I studied economics and then went into programming. I stumbled on to writing even though I hated writing at uni.

However I’ve had to develop publications (online) from scratch and know a little bit about what makes websites successful, develops community, and makes for successful writing.

I go by my instincts and experience I’ve developed, not some establishment view of what journalism should be (in case that’s what you’re thinking).

That is appalling. Does the Guardian get young journalists to write for free?

Perhaps Polly could spare you some of her lolly.

What a disgrace. I got a few bob for writing for the New Statesman – not many bob, I’ll grant you, but a few at least.

The blog for LC was a tiny off spin of what I was actually doing in Manchester. If you want to see the full length feature about “Yasmin” check out today’s Society Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/14/asylum-seekers-struggle-benefits-cut

And if you want to see the full set of diaries day by day detailing what life is like for her, you can read them here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/oct/14/asylum-seeker-diary-benefits-cut

Although for all those worried about the future of good journalism, you are slightly vindicated that I wasn’t paid for those.