The Editorialiste Has A Dream

Welcome back, readers, to a new year of journalism. (and a new font size)

The last one was tumultuous to say the least, and the residue of "You" as TIME's Person of the Year still lingers (I'm still not quite sure what it means in the grand scheme of things, but it will undoubtably be indicative of this time...hmm, how appropriate). This was a year of generational lies and business deals and the proclamation of a dying industry. A dying art. Withering something.

But journalism isn't dying. It isn't living. It's in stasis, waiting for someone to take it somewhere.

Instead of a retrospective of the year, as many blogs posted before the New Year, I care to stop and think about the most burning questions about being a journalist. The questions that come out in the night. The questions that no one can agree on but whose answer everyone lays claim to. With that, a series of questions intended for mental digestion:

What is the most rewarding type of journalism? Is it serious, or is it satire? Is it long, or is it brief?

What journalist's prose do you truly enjoy reading?

What makes a journalist? Is it an ability, a fashion of thinking, a lifestyle, a pulse, a business card?

What is your favorite publication, in any format? Think about why.

What is journalism? An article, a person, a company, an institution, an industry, none at all?

I had to pose these questions, only because my mind has been flooded with them for the last few weeks. They are, to say the least, valuable to keep in mind as The Editorialiste begins its second calendar year.

Journalism is ever-changing and storied, simultaneously. Journalists are both purveyors of the history around them and keepers of their own history. Sometimes the roles get mixed up. So to start the year off, here's hoping for something new and great, and that no journalist this year follow the mantra, "because that's the way it's been done."