SORU: aşağıdaki parçaya göre cevaplayınız
The writer prefers to define journalism ----.
The distinction between “journalism” and “literature”
is quite futile, unless we are drawing such a violent
contrast as that between Gibbon's History and
today's paper; and such a contrast itself is too violent
to have meaning. You cannot, that is, draw any
useful distinction between journalism and literature
merely on a scale of literary values, as a difference
between the well-written and the supremely wellwritten:
a second-rate novel is not journalism, but it
certainly is not literature. The term “journalism” has
deteriorated, so let us try to recall it to its more
permanent sense. To my thinking, the most accurate
as well as most comprehensive definition of the term
is to be obtained through considering the type of
mind, concerned with writing what all would concede
to be the best journalism. There's a type of mind, and
I have a very close sympathy with it, which can only
turn to writing, or only produce its best writing, under
the pressure of an immediate occasion; and it is this
type of mind which I propose to treat as the
journalist's. The underlying causes may differ: the
cause may be an ardent preoccupation with affairs of
the day, or it may be (as with myself) laziness
requiring an immediate stimulus, or a habit formed by
early necessity of earning small sums quickly. It is not
so much that the journalist works on different material
from that of other writers, as that he works from a
different, no less and often more honourable, motive.