At a recent introductory session for a course I teach, the fresh group of media hopefuls were asked what they understood the word Journalism to mean. Amongst the many responses was the word trust, or seeking the truth. In response I rudely sniggered. Being the old cynic that I am, I have long lost the enthusiastic ideals of the young and the beating heart of a man looking for change and the truth. Instead I understand the currency of modern mainstream journalism; eye-catching, headline grabbing pictures or words. The truth is often irrelevant, or so I thought.
On reflection I got to thinking about what being a journalist these days really does mean. After all, the tectonic plates in the world of media have shifted significantly since I learnt the trade, with the Internet not just moving the goalposts but completely ripping up the rules of the game. Mobile phones with cameras means we hear a lot about 'people journalism', with much of the footage shown on breaking stories coming from YouTube.
To illustrate this, we had the Libya developments this week. Footage of the moments before and after Colonel Gaddafi's death were shown on TV, not of course filmed by professional crews but on mobile phones. Much of this footage appeared first on the internet and before the BBC, Sky News or ITN chose to show it, they had to verify the pictures and then weigh up whether to broadcast them. But in the rolling-news cauldron there is a pressure to find the best pictures first and get them to air before your rival.
'Citizen journalism' is all well and good, and certainly a very powerful way to get insight into a story; take the London riots as an example. But the expert news teams at the BBC, Sky News and ITN are the filters for the multitude of material claiming to be from these events. Years of experience allows them to make decisions on what should or should not be shown. This is what marks broadcast media apart from the internet.
And this brings me back to 'the truth'. At the very heart of showing the pictures of the moments surrounding Gaddafi's death was the need to understand what really happened. Never did I hear a colleague say "that's a great bloody picture, use that". Of course there is a question of taste and decency, but what one person thinks is fine, another may disagree with. That is far more subjective. But getting to the truth of Gaddafi's death was perhaps made easier by releasing these pictures. Now questions are raised by the United Nations and an investigation may follow. So perhaps that grumpy old cynic inside me is wrong. Perhaps journalists do spend most days ultimately seeking the truth.