Why journalism?

At what point does being a good journalist include the act of being a good writer as well? Because that's all I have. Two weeks into journalism school and I've been intimidated on a daily basis by the sheer number of people who seem to be better informed and more outspoken than I am. Agreed, I'm not outspoken at all, but I'm always afraid that when I do say something, I'm going to come off stupid. Before I came here, I was of the assumption that I was one of the most erudite and smart people around - at least, my friends seem to suggest so. I thought that I'd be able to sail through these courses with only the regular addition of physical work to my already existing "intellectual capabilities". Now, all that I'm hoping for is to make it out of this place without feeling like a moron and letting the intellect marinate in its new-found stellar company.

For quite some time now, I've been really interested in letting my scientific and journalistic interests converge, and that would mean taking a few leaves out of the notebooks of Feynman and Sagan, perhaps even Dawkins - but I hate Dawkins. Four years' engineering education can leave even the most repressive engineering student with a scientific curiosity and an addiction to the scientific method. Before 2006, I didn't care for the future of semiconductor technology. Now, in 2011, it's the point from which I branch out to get my daily dose of tech. news. And when it comes to tech. news, there's two ways of looking at it.

The first would essentially be a study of where technology is "taking" us, a techno-social approach that focuses on technology's interaction with people and its ability to define our lifestyles. Such a focus would (or should?) also include a coverage of the policy perspectives that the government must assume in order to let tech. develop, in order for tech. to find its rightful place in the society, and in order for tech. to assist with governance.

The second way to look at tech. news would be to ensure that any developments find their way into all corners of the geeksphere, i.e., to cater solely to the community that works closely with technology on a daily basis. Ars Technica and Mashable are good examples of this sort of writing, where the focus is not on the people itself as it is on the products of technology that cater to the people.

I'm interested in a combination of the two, and that doesn't mean pursuing both simultaneously. In simple words, it's being a geek with a sense of social responsibility - rather, a deliberated sense of social responsibility (I'm not saying geeks aren't social responsible - I'm saying the moniker "geek" does not imply an obligation to be socially responsible). For example, consider the following few posts I read recently on AT.

1. FBI arrests 16 linked with Anonymous' cyberattacks


2. A new fuel that reversibly stores solar energy


3. Developer gets Chrome OS running on Macbook Air

The first one involves the misuse of tech. to antagonize public institutions. The second one is pure tech. but with a significant amount of social repercussions, albeit long-winded repercussions. The third article is all tech. with no pretensions of social responsibility. I'm not interested in the first one. I'm definitely not interested in the third one. The contents of the second article, I love! It's not because I consider ergonomics to be an awesome field of study - I do! - but because it's the closest any subject can come to to reflecting what I think technology's purpose is and what it's responsibilities are.

Yes, social media is a product of technology, too (wouldn't have happened without transistors and Moore's law), but even though it has acquired the ability to effect changes in the public sphere, it's capricious without the human user. High-energy physics, power plant design and cellular automatons, on the other hand, are purely technical assemblages that proffer advantages of their deployment that overwhelm the disadvantages irrespective of human intervention.

That's the idea I want to take up, handle, and be the force behind the dissemination of. That's the sort of science I want to keep clean and understandable. That's the sort of pursuit I want to encourage by highlighting as well as exposing. Yes, there's a long way to go, but I'll find one that fits my desires best. Yes, I could also do with some practical experience to acclimatize myself with the fundamental sensitivities of the subject, but such a consideration is purely logistical, perhaps even purely infrastructural. At the end of the day, I believe I should be able to deconstruct the news, access an audience, retain it, influence attitudes, and do it repeatedly, scalably. That's where I'm heading.

Why journalism? That's why.

Why journalism?

At what point does being a good journalist include the act of being a good writer as well? Because that's all I have. Two weeks into journalism school and I've been intimidated on a daily basis by the sheer number of people who seem to be better informed and more outspoken than I am. Agreed, I'm not outspoken at all, but I'm always afraid that when I do say something, I'm going to come off stupid. Before I came here, I was of the assumption that I was one of the most erudite and smart people around - at least, my friends seem to suggest so. I thought that I'd be able to sail through these courses with only the regular addition of physical work to my already existing "intellectual capabilities". Now, all that I'm hoping for is to make it out of this place without feeling like a moron and letting the intellect marinate in its new-found stellar company.

For quite some time now, I've been really interested in letting my scientific and journalistic interests converge, and that would mean taking a few leaves out of the notebooks of Feynman and Sagan, perhaps even Dawkins - but I hate Dawkins. Four years' engineering education can leave even the most repressive engineering student with a scientific curiosity and an addiction to the scientific method. Before 2006, I didn't care for the future of semiconductor technology. Now, in 2011, it's the point from which I branch out to get my daily dose of tech. news. And when it comes to tech. news, there's two ways of looking at it.

The first would essentially be a study of where technology is "taking" us, a techno-social approach that focuses on technology's interaction with people and its ability to define our lifestyles. Such a focus would (or should?) also include a coverage of the policy perspectives that the government must assume in order to let tech. develop, in order for tech. to find its rightful place in the society, and in order for tech. to assist with governance.

The second way to look at tech. news would be to ensure that any developments find their way into all corners of the geeksphere, i.e., to cater solely to the community that works closely with technology on a daily basis. Ars Technica and Mashable are good examples of this sort of writing, where the focus is not on the people itself as it is on the products of technology that cater to the people.

I'm interested in a combination of the two, and that doesn't mean pursuing both simultaneously. In simple words, it's being a geek with a sense of social responsibility - rather, a deliberated sense of social responsibility (I'm not saying geeks aren't social responsible - I'm saying the moniker "geek" does not imply an obligation to be socially responsible). For example, consider the following few posts I read recently on AT.

1. FBI arrests 16 linked with Anonymous' cyberattacks


2. A new fuel that reversibly stores solar energy


3. Developer gets Chrome OS running on Macbook Air

The first one involves the misuse of tech. to antagonize public institutions. The second one is pure tech. but with a significant amount of social repercussions, albeit long-winded repercussions. The third article is all tech. with no pretensions of social responsibility. I'm not interested in the first one. I'm definitely not interested in the third one. The contents of the second article, I love! It's not because I consider ergonomics to be an awesome field of study - I do! - but because it's the closest any subject can come to to reflecting what I think technology's purpose is and what it's responsibilities are.

Yes, social media is a product of technology, too (wouldn't have happened without transistors and Moore's law), but even though it has acquired the ability to effect changes in the public sphere, it's capricious without the human user. High-energy physics, power plant design and cellular automatons, on the other hand, are purely technical assemblages that proffer advantages of their deployment that overwhelm the disadvantages irrespective of human intervention.

That's the idea I want to take up, handle, and be the force behind the dissemination of. That's the sort of science I want to keep clean and understandable. That's the sort of pursuit I want to encourage by highlighting as well as exposing. Yes, there's a long way to go, but I'll find one that fits my desires best. Yes, I could also do with some practical experience to acclimatize myself with the fundamental sensitivities of the subject, but such a consideration is purely logistical, perhaps even purely infrastructural. At the end of the day, I believe I should be able to deconstruct the news, access an audience, retain it, influence attitudes, and do it repeatedly, scalably. That's where I'm heading.

Why journalism? That's why.

Writers and whores

The Latin word ‘prostituta’ is the etymological root of the word ‘prostitute’; the former is in turn a composition of ‘pro’ (forward) and ‘statuere’ (to cause, to effect). Therefore, the literal translation of the composition would be “to place forward”, “to proffer”.

That being said, I will now assume the liberty to dissociate the word from its meaning in order to elaborate on its other domains of applicability. By virtue of being the world’s oldest profession, the coinage of said label for the practice calls into question the very nature of prostitution owing to the seeming semantic incongruence.

For instance, the offering of sexual services in return for monetary compensation hardly deserves the vague conference of such a term that has acquired any connotations in a non-autotelic manner.

In that case, a simpler recourse could be suggested that the word be replaced with one more, in a manner of speaking, “meaningful”. However, that is not the purpose of this discourse.

Now, consider the nature of these sexual services in whose regard the aforementioned connotations exist.

If not for the indignity associated with trading such commodities, the essential transfer is quite similar to one governed by literature by way of the writing and reading of books.

Let me rephrase, rather paraphrase, the question: what is the difference between two trades, one of which allows for the performance of sexual activities in return for money, while the other allows for the exhibition of literary skills in return for money?

Further, if congruence can be established, within the bounds of reason, between the performance of sexual services and the exhibition of literary skills, would the congruence imply that authorship and prostitution are congruent, too?

First off, it is important to address the purpose of a sexual service, namely gratification.

This gratification may be for the purpose of satiating an opinion that a reward is necessary in order to appease a growing sense of disorientation on a “hard day‘s night”.

In other words, the sexual gratification awarded by a sex worker becomes the reward for some work performed, the representation of which, in this context, is the money paid to avail that gratification.

At other times, sexual services may be procured as an occupation of relief, with the same, rather similar, contractual mechanics.

Similarly, what is the “kind” of gratification received from, say, reading a good book? It must be noted that only if the contractual mechanics are different from those of the procurement of a sexual service will the gratification received from engaging in a sexual activity differ from the gratification received by reading a book. However, such an argument excludes a purely “qualitative” contention, which will be addressed later.

The effects of reading a good book can be summarized by an important aesthetic dimension the act of reading proffers: by the employment of a language that may or may not represent (through references) the material world, literary texts provide an impression that the reader is wrapped in one that touches him or her in the lightest possible ways, making him or her feel a part of the world, of its objects, and of its bodies.

In keeping with the truism that artistic expression is a collateral of man’s search for meaning, it can be concluded that the creation of an artistic product is a form of declaration, one that establishes some (although fixed) meaning in the eyes of the artist, and the subscription of which is established by a person who conforms to that system and character of thought, the conclusion of which is the proof of its semantic validity.

Therefore, the procurement of a book, a journal, or any product whose contents include something of literary value, represents a gratification received by the purchase through the validation of certain doubts expressed by him or her.

In such a case, is not the writer prostituting his or her skills for money?

How is this trade not congruent with that of prostitution?

In furtherance of this discussion, if a defence is put forth that establishes incongruence of the contracts by calling to attention that our bodies are all that we “enter this world” with (akin to the definition of a system in the context of thermodynamic analysis), and that prostitutes (in the modern connotation of the term) debase the dignity of the same institution that is the source of a state’s constitution as well as definition, I would point out that the same body is also the source of our literary skills, and in corroboration of this position, I would nominate the contributions of Noam Chomsky and, more recently, Steven Pinker.

Thus, in conclusion of this discussion: a reasonable parallelism exists between the creation of literature and the performance of sexual services while, surprisingly, there exists an incongruence of perspectives, especially in the jurisprudential domain (if a constructivist approach is given prominence).

Writers and whores

The Latin word ‘prostituta’ is the etymological root of the word ‘prostitute’; the former is in turn a composition of ‘pro’ (forward) and ‘statuere’ (to cause, to effect). Therefore, the literal translation of the composition would be “to place forward”, “to proffer”.

That being said, I will now assume the liberty to dissociate the word from its meaning in order to elaborate on its other domains of applicability. By virtue of being the world’s oldest profession, the coinage of said label for the practice calls into question the very nature of prostitution owing to the seeming semantic incongruence.

For instance, the offering of sexual services in return for monetary compensation hardly deserves the vague conference of such a term that has acquired any connotations in a non-autotelic manner.

In that case, a simpler recourse could be suggested that the word be replaced with one more, in a manner of speaking, “meaningful”. However, that is not the purpose of this discourse.

Now, consider the nature of these sexual services in whose regard the aforementioned connotations exist.

If not for the indignity associated with trading such commodities, the essential transfer is quite similar to one governed by literature by way of the writing and reading of books.

Let me rephrase, rather paraphrase, the question: what is the difference between two trades, one of which allows for the performance of sexual activities in return for money, while the other allows for the exhibition of literary skills in return for money?

Further, if congruence can be established, within the bounds of reason, between the performance of sexual services and the exhibition of literary skills, would the congruence imply that authorship and prostitution are congruent, too?

First off, it is important to address the purpose of a sexual service, namely gratification.

This gratification may be for the purpose of satiating an opinion that a reward is necessary in order to appease a growing sense of disorientation on a “hard day‘s night”.

In other words, the sexual gratification awarded by a sex worker becomes the reward for some work performed, the representation of which, in this context, is the money paid to avail that gratification.

At other times, sexual services may be procured as an occupation of relief, with the same, rather similar, contractual mechanics.

Similarly, what is the “kind” of gratification received from, say, reading a good book? It must be noted that only if the contractual mechanics are different from those of the procurement of a sexual service will the gratification received from engaging in a sexual activity differ from the gratification received by reading a book. However, such an argument excludes a purely “qualitative” contention, which will be addressed later.

The effects of reading a good book can be summarized by an important aesthetic dimension the act of reading proffers: by the employment of a language that may or may not represent (through references) the material world, literary texts provide an impression that the reader is wrapped in one that touches him or her in the lightest possible ways, making him or her feel a part of the world, of its objects, and of its bodies.

In keeping with the truism that artistic expression is a collateral of man’s search for meaning, it can be concluded that the creation of an artistic product is a form of declaration, one that establishes some (although fixed) meaning in the eyes of the artist, and the subscription of which is established by a person who conforms to that system and character of thought, the conclusion of which is the proof of its semantic validity.

Therefore, the procurement of a book, a journal, or any product whose contents include something of literary value, represents a gratification received by the purchase through the validation of certain doubts expressed by him or her.

In such a case, is not the writer prostituting his or her skills for money?

How is this trade not congruent with that of prostitution?

In furtherance of this discussion, if a defence is put forth that establishes incongruence of the contracts by calling to attention that our bodies are all that we “enter this world” with (akin to the definition of a system in the context of thermodynamic analysis), and that prostitutes (in the modern connotation of the term) debase the dignity of the same institution that is the source of a state’s constitution as well as definition, I would point out that the same body is also the source of our literary skills, and in corroboration of this position, I would nominate the contributions of Noam Chomsky and, more recently, Steven Pinker.

Thus, in conclusion of this discussion: a reasonable parallelism exists between the creation of literature and the performance of sexual services while, surprisingly, there exists an incongruence of perspectives, especially in the jurisprudential domain (if a constructivist approach is given prominence).