It has come to my attention that our society loves the notion of classification. For us, the line can never be blurred. There is no such thing as the “grey area.” This exists pretty much everywhere. In the sports world people pretend as if they are Nellie Bly when discussing the “eliteness” of Baltimore Ravens’ quarterback Joe Flacco. When you go to a museum, there is always that one friend who will disagree with the tour guide on whether the Mona Lisa constitutes as “art.” So, naturally we’ve shifted to the ever-important issue of curation and whether or not it is in fact journalism.
Well, the answer is…
The answer is unequivocally, no hesitations, Y-E-S.
Curation has steadily become an imperative operating tool in the storytelling world. In some cases, it has emerged as the most effective means of explaining complex, meaty stories. Although we may not even realize it, curation is the backbone of a large mass of the things we read. Does anyone remember when David Bowie passed away? (If you don’t, I don’t know how you managed to find this blog, but it’s nice to have you!) When David Bowie died it seemed like the journalism world birthed a new baby named curation. Major media outlets such as Time Magazine and The Telegraph strung together various tweets about his life’s work to create a more grand image of who he was.
Often, we get caught up in the literal denotation of words. Journalism is much more than its perceived definition as a profession of writing for newspapers, magazines or news websites. Rather, journalism is, under a more connotative microscope, the concept of telling a story. Curation is simply one the many branches that extends off the journalism tree.
I find the debate over the journalistic makeup of curation to be pettily amusing. At the end of the day, curators are storytellers who gather information and format it with the intent of providing some sort of a story to an audience. If that isn’t journalism, then I guess Kyrie Irving was right.