|View single post by BigPowell|
|Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 11:07 pm||
|“Historians are not journalists; their job is to distill facts and actions into lessons.”
“Journalists write the first draft of history (thus, making them historians?)”
Journalists and historians have a very similar charge and duty. They must document the who, what, where, when, why, and how of an event – the journalist is charged with documenting current events, which makes them an important primary reference for future historians. A good journalist will also have a keen sense of history that will give context and perspective to current events, as the average adult has the attention span and memory of a 3 month old Jack Russell terrier. It also doesn’t hurt to constantly remind us of the two clichés – “there is nothing new under the sun,” and “those that don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
Historians are charged with the who, what, etc. of past events. They should also work other similar past events into their writing for the above stated reasons.
Neither the journalist nor the historian should distill facts and actions into lessons. That should be the job of the individual reading them. If the individual is unable to utilize the material, he can always turn to a variety of resources to help him, i.e.: trusted colleagues, academics, commentators and pundits, clergy, etc. This will of course distill and distort the original information.
“This is an interesting thread, but given that we all come with bias or points of view, to what purpose?”
We chat like this to distract ourselves from the fact that
And I hope JoanieReb and her youngster recover soon. These wintertime plagues take all the fun out of life!
Last edited on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 11:14 pm by BigPowell