I have followed this discussion for quite awhile and I can't recall if anyone has come out and said outright that journalism is a kind of performance whose relationship with reality is not that much different from that of films. Both are species of representation that depend on the gullibility of their audiences. The difference between the two may be that fiction films don't pretend to represent the literal truth. Their "credibility" is based on aesthetics, not ideology (though they trade in that too). Films have had a long history of exploring the problem of the "news" in a critical way. "Citizen Kane" comes to mind, but also Antonioni's "The Passenger." The Nicholson character abandons his identity as a journalist, I think, because the news itself loses all "credibility" (something we learn through the flashbacks). The film's historical connections to the Vietnam era and semiotics (Peter Wollen worked on the script) are clear enough but it remains an amazing film. >Those journalists working in television who are focussed on being = >journalists and not performers would not "sell out" unless they were = >willing to give up their "credibility". The stock and trade of a = >"serious" journalist is their credibility. The stock and trade of a = >news personality is their "appeal". Contracts with newsmedia stars = >have come to include clauses on appearances in fictional roles and = >the sharing of revenue from those appearances with the organization = >they are affiliated with. >Dave Trautman Is it too obvious to suggest that "credibility" is another market commodity whose use-value translates into a form of "appeal" which can then be marketed? And with each subsequent exhange the value of the image of say "Bernard Shaw" increases? And that ultimately the image of "credibility" replaces its reality? Is that Baudrillard I can smell coming? Brett Enemark Grad Student in Film and Cultural Studies Simon Fraser University ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama.