The Role of the Journalist in this thing of ours: What should it be?

I think that they should be exempt from protection at all times - with the blessings of the powers that be. Similarly, I think they should be able to run stories with sources that remain anonymous - again, protected from the trigger happy hordes. I think should be done without interference from the Gods and sorted out amongst ourselves. They should be left alone to write and inform.

Your thoughts?

I assume there is some sort of benefit in becoming a journalist, be it monetary or "for the kick" they get out of it

If they want to avoid the dangers of this life perhaps they should remain a Civilian

No doubt the good ones are providing a service and their murder would be unlucky but they should get no immunity. It would surely be abused. Casualties of war are unfortunate but they are indeed a reality.

On the other hand we could also provide special protection for the nanny as well

But, how can the journalist stay civilian?  The community benefits from a newspaper - yet it's journalists are at rick from having a higher profile.

Allowing them to remain Civilian on second thought would be a bad idea. We join this world to become mafioso first and foremost, not journalists.

If someone would like to take up the hobby of journalism on their own time so be it. I do enjoy a good newspaper with my morning pancakes

In fact I see nobody offering me any immunity or compensation for my past times. (panty collector)

Having a higher profile does create more of a risk. The flip side of that coin, however is that keeping your head down and not creating a public persona will keep you out of sight, thus out of mind... for a short while, at least.

Journalism is the reporting of the events of the day. Not editorials which convey the opinions of the author.

Clearly there is a role for journalists to keep the populous informed about the events of our times - and it differs from the more editorial style that most people employ out here on the streets. 

As far as protection goes, there used to be a role for a newspaper editor which kept that person apart from the daily lives of the mafioso, they didn't do crimes, have a gun, or influence events at all. The editor merely wrote, collated, and edited articles submitted to them. Perhaps you are advocating a return of such a role?

Yes - I can't remember the name of the famous female editor, but I sold her a horse once, when this world was called something different.

Just a minor issue but why would you want to be exempt from protection?

I think I would rather be protected

Probably just to be on the edge of things...I'd still rather have some protection mind you.

As far as I can see this could not be simpler.

The role of a journalist is much what it is the world over - journalism.

Journalists are exempt from protetcion, they do what they do because the people want to, and deserve to be informed on world events from an impartial, unbiased point of view.  Sadly, because of this, they undoubtedly leave themselves open to upsetting the powers that be; especially in this thing of ours.  Leaders, although accomodating to the presence of a newspaper and journalists are not going to be very receptive to articles that they deem offending or slanderous, at the end of the day nobody likes being painted in a negative light.

It could be suggested that to run a paper on these streets is of course going to be detrimental to your health and this is something that those with a flair and passion for reporting are going to have to weigh up very carefully before plying their trade.

In my experience, those informers / reporters that require anonymity have usually, if not always been granted this favour and more often than not it has been the editor that has taken any repercussions on the chin, with said repercussions usually resulting in a cold shallow grave in the desert, be it from an irate mobsters hand or, more uncommonly, by the hand of god.

Journalism in this thing of ours has always been and always will be coupled with a label that reads "Hazardous to Health".

Maybe this is why there seems to be a lack of good quality broadsheets to choose from, (at last count I can see only 2).

Good points Vitti - but maybe this is something to be remedied?

Being a bit of a journalist myself, I suppose I should offer a few thoughts here. Some Liar (literally -- it's his name, and I'm still trying to figure out who names their kid that) in this thread said that editorializing isn't journalism, it's only journalism if you're just offering the day's events. I think that's wrong. If good journalism consists in just giving a straight shot of the facts, I would direct you to The Reaper Daily's recent deaths section. Straight shooting, no commentary, just the facts. I haven't really met anyone who thought that was a great example of journalistic integrity and straight shooting though. Editorializing is the spice that brings your articles to life. And let's not kid ourselves: even stories that try to pretend they're just relating events come with their own set of biases just from how they are written. At least in an editorial the author is completely up front about their own biases so you can choose whether to accept their words or not.

As far as journalistic protection goes, I don't see why someone should be able to insult people or things they wouldn't otherwise then claim "but it was only in the newspaper! I'm a journalist, you can't do a thing about it!" If you write it, you should stand by it just as much as if you were blabbering about it in the bars or shouting it in the streets. And take note, this is in fact coming from someone who runs a newspaper known for being blatantly offensive to the leadership class. If someone were to decide they weren't going to put up with my lip any more and were willing to fight over it, I would expect things to get ugly quite quickly. And I don't think there's a person walking these streets who wouldn't both feel it was a justified response to the scathing reviews and feel disappointed if they were unable to read them in the future because I was dead. That's just the life of the journalist. The trick, in my mind, is to produce a product well-liked enough that the pangs of remorse for destroying it are strong enough no one wants it on their conscience.

Well, i personaly dont have anything againts journalism or journalists. But if a journalist is going to carry on a paper, he must be well informed and respectfull. Journalist or not, you all agree that speaking here must be done with a certain amount of respect. Bad mouthing is never wise, and start unecessary issues. It is not for any body to become a journalist, it is a fine line to walk on. Also you have to know the facts. Reaper made a mistake on his last paper by not knowing all the facts, and not seeking them on the streets. As of now, he will be guided. He is a fine writer and did a fine job so far. We all make mistakes but mistakes can be fixed. I personal still encourage journalism. It gives work for some and intertainment for others. But it has to be done with the greatest amount of respect. Reaper is a young writer, he has great potential. Keep in mind that the leaders of this family has been aware of Reaper's error and we will properly guide him for the futur.