Gratuit avec l’offre d'essai
Écouter avec l’offre
-
Before Journalism Schools: How Gilded Age Reporters Learned the Rules
- Journalism in Perspective
- Lu par : Kevin Moriarty
- Durée : 5 h et 4 min
Impossible d'ajouter des articles
Échec de l’élimination de la liste d'envies.
Impossible de suivre le podcast
Impossible de ne plus suivre le podcast
Acheter pour 17,91 €
Aucun moyen de paiement n'est renseigné par défaut.
Désolés ! Le mode de paiement sélectionné n'est pas autorisé pour cette vente.
![Les membres Amazon Prime bénéficient automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts chez Audible.](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/08/AudibleFR/fr_FR/img/site/anonhp/1590-Prime-Visual-1000x150.png)
Vous êtes membre Amazon Prime ?
Bénéficiez automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts.Bonne écoute !
Description
Randall Sumpter questions the dominant notion that reporters entering the field in the late 19th century relied on an informal apprenticeship system to learn the rules of journalism. Drawing from the experiences of more than 50 reporters, he argues that cub reporters could and did access multiple sources of instruction, including autobiographies and memoirs of journalists, fiction, guidebooks, and trade magazines. Arguments for “professional journalism” did not resonate with the workaday journalists examined here. These news workers were more concerned with following a personal rather than a professional code of ethics, and implemented their own work rules. Some of those rules governed “delinquent” behavior. While scholars have traced some of the connections between beginning journalists and learning opportunities, Sumpter shows that much more can be discovered, with implications for understanding the development of journalistic professionalism and present-day instances of journalistic behavior.
The book is published by University of Missouri Press. The audiobook is published by University Press Audiobooks.
Commentaires
“This study is important.” (Patricia Dooley, Wichita State University)
"Sumpter's work is not just good, but exceptional." (H-Net Reviews)