I took journalism in early highschool and worked for our school paper. We were taught that the most important part of being a journalist is;
1) State the truth,
2) Quote people accurately,
3) Abide by all the prevailing ethics and laws in regards to journalism,
4) You must always provide attribution of original author or source of information whenever possible.
Of course there were other things, but, these were the primary 'musts' that we were to comply with at all times.
I can see where many of the people in the media claim to be 'Commentators' as opposed to 'Journalists', as a Commentator is not required to hold to the level of honesty and compliance with the ethics of reporting the truth and facts that Journalists are required and expected to follow. Many Commentators often state nothing more than personal opinions, rumors, or flat out lies, and pass them off as facts, and are not subject to the same accountability as Journalists. However, there seem to be many people who call themselves a Journalist that by their very method of reporting fall much more into the category of Commentator instead of Journalist.
-------------------------------------------------
What is the difference between a Commentator and Journalist?
Commentator: A broadcaster or writer who reports and analyzes events in the news. One who writes or delivers a commentary or commentaries.
Journalist: A person who practices the occupation or profession of journalism
What is Journalism?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Journalism
http://www.robertniles.com/journalism/ - (The Reporting part gives nice details)
-------------------------------------------------
When I am conversing with my family, friends, familiar folk or those of close association, I don't speak in the same manner as I do when I am teaching a class, or speaking at a business meeting. I am more relaxed and casual among those that I am on a more personal level with than business associates or students, where more formal speech and decorum is expected.
I got the opinion during his speech to the CBC that the President was speaking among friends and comrades, thus, his manner of speech was more relaxed and on kind of a personal level. To me is was if he were speaking to friends or close associates. But, there's always those who must find something to be insulted about or pick on the President about 'just because', even if they're guilty of doing the same thing.
Being from the South I have a very distinct Southern drawl and use many Southern slang words and euphemisms. My friends and family members include a wide variety of folks of ethnic decent and backgrounds. I also speak several different languages and use slang words and euphemisms of those languages, as well, and never have I ever been accused by any of these people of mocking them, or being condescending or racist. While I am quite capable and learned enough to speak on very formal speech, that manner of speech is reserved for my business and education worlds. I don't use that manner of speaking when I am with family, friends and close associates. That would be an insult to them, as if I were trying to show them up or that I feel I'm better than them.
Folks can spin it however they wish, and they will, because he is the President, but, I personally found nothing at all wrong in how the President was speaking to a group of people he knew and felt comfortable with, and spoke to as friends and/or associates.



