That leads us to another important factor in journalism: language. The ability and power to define things is the primary function of the language (because I just said so). A children's book told the story of a goat who learned how to count, and the goat counted all the other animals and they were very upset. "He's counting us! Stop it!" This is what language does--you are number one, you are number two, you are number three. (And these last three phrases even have social connotations...)
   Journalism uses language to define the world to us all. Therefore, this language is important. The professional grasp of language (for radio journalists it also includes sounds, and for TV journalists pictures) is an ability that can be used to inform or to disinform, since it is also used in advertising. Journalism will still be needed in this area. Not only to define the world in an "objective" way, but to provide a common language in which to discuss the democratic governing of society (more on the democratic implications later).
   The importance of a common language is irrefutable, but for democracy to work it cannot be decided by just anyone--e.g. governments or non-journalistic companies. For it to be useful, the language has to be correct, and vice versa. Jaap van Ginneken discusses how important our very words are to frame people in the minds of others (van Ginneken 1998: 11-15). This important function of journalistic and other language is actually mocked by some as "political correctness". But language is political, and there is no way of getting around it. There is a difference in using slang or correct language on every other occasion, so it is naturally the same with words that describe minorities or women (who are a majority, by the way).
   Words in the media have an impact on the way we think. As Pedelty remarks: "The news has us think almost solely in terms of imagined communities (the state) and subordinate institutions (family), rather than in terms of the corporate structures in which we spend the majority of our time." (Pedelty 1995: 186)
   Roger Wallis and Stanley J Baran describe the creation of prejudice. By naming a group (hooligans), journalists make the public sensitive to its existence (even if it does not exist). This is then followed by over-estimation and escalation (Wallis & Baran 1990: 236). It is a question of definitions of the words used to "create" society and the world in the media. It is one of the most important tasks for journalism, now and in the future, so it is imperative that it be performed responsibly by people who are at least trying to be objective.
   A sculptor once said: To make a real animal is difficult, because then you have to get it right. Making a monster is much easier, because then I am the only one who knows what the monster looks like.
   David Morley and Kevin Robins quote Ricoeur: "Suddenly, it becomes possible that there are just Others, that we ourselves are an 'other' among Others." (Morley & Robins 1995: 25) This was written in 1965, when it was perhaps not as self-evident. But Morley and Robins call "difference as a resource and as a source of enrichment" a "utopian possibility"! (Morley & Robins 1995: 25) In this day and age. Fortunately, it is not a "utopian possibility", it is a fact. Businesses all over the world are using this very resource to improve themselves. Maybe it is a result of the information society, where a differing opinion is worth more than "Yes, sir. Right away, sir." It sharpens the mind to express something, and the thought expressed will be sharpened by it too.
   As far as Bardoel's provocative question is concerned, I would say that the Internet is more of a threat to some kinds of scientific jargon, and only after doing away with them can it in turn threaten journalism. Until then, journalism will be needed to put in layman's terms what the scholars write. Sometimes, scholars themselves would be better off doing just that. It has been shown in studies at a law school that laws written in plain language are actually better understood and better applied in court compared to traditional, more "exact" laws. (Esaias Tegnér said in 1820, more than 175 years ago: "Vad du ej klart kan säga vet du ej; med tanken ordet föds på mannens läppar; det dunkelt sagda är det dunkelt tänkta." What you cannot say clearly, you do not know; word is borne by thought; that which is dimly said was dimly thought.)
   Another view on language, or communication, is given by Gurevitch. He says that the "blue Skies" attitude to technological advances is "a perspective based on the implicit assumption that 'communication is a good thing', that tensions and conflicts stem from 'breakdowns in communication', and that if we only have 'better communication' a more harmonious global order will come about." (Gurevitch 1996: 204) As always, ironic words like these amaze me. Of course communication contributes to a better world. If he did not believe this, why would he bother to try? It is the basis of all knowledge and science--and without any trust in science it must be rather agonizing to be a scientist. This argument also answers the question of whether journalists should contribute to peace in the world or be "value neutral"--there simply is no choice but to "contribute", because it is the function of journalism.
   Tom Lehrer says on his record That Was The Year That Was: "Speaking of love, one problem that recurs more and more frequently these days, in books and plays and movies, is the inability of people to communicate with the people they love. Husbands and wives who can't communicate, children who can't communicate with their parents and so on. And the characters in these books and plays and so on--and in real life, I might add--spend hours bemoaning the fact that they can't communicate. I feel, that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up!" (Lehrer 1965: 30'38") I agree with him.
   Some feel like I do about the value of communication, blue skies or not, and however exaggerated their Utopian prognoses. David Lyon mentions one social forecast: "New communications technologies hold out the next promise--the demise of war (as slavery disappeared in the industrial era [...])." (Lyon 1995: 57)