Factotum -- Jack or Flunky?

Mark has gotten a lot of attention for a column he did on high-speed rail, including invitations to chat with people in the business. "They do know you're just a dilettante expert, right?" I pointedly remarked, ever supportive of his journalism. Which ultimately led to my dubbing him a factotum (which, I thought, is the nature of the game in much of journalism) to which he took umbrage. "I am not a flunky," he retorted. Well, wait a minute; I didn't call him that. "No, a flunky is a sycophant. I'm calling you a jack-of-all-trades" (which, again, is the nature of much of journalism, or so I thought). Clearly, we had a difference of usage, and the way to settle that is to go to the dictionary.

OED notes the Latin roots of factotum, as facere, meaning "to do," and totum, meaning "the whole." The moniker "Johannes Factotum" and "Frère Jean Factotum" showed up back in the 16th century, meaning "John-do-everything." The term also is akin to the Latin phrase "Dominus factotum," meaning "one who controls everything." It's hard to tell if the term was applied from the beginning with complete straight-faced sincerity or ironically or has always had a dual usage, though the OED seems to indicate the former.

Today, both terms jack-of-all-trades and factotum can be used either admiringly or derisively, meaning either one who can do a bit of everything or one who dabbles or meddles in everything. So, yes, a factotum can designate one hired because she is versatile or because she's suited to be a general go-fer. The OED seems to suggest that factotum is a term for someone above being a sycophant or simple go-fer. It notes that in modern sense, the term signifies, "a man of all-work; also a servant who has the entire management of his master's affairs." (Momentary pause to think that the "modern" sense in the OED still includes the idea of "masters" and "servants.") Our dictionary for college students defines factotum simply as, "an employee or assistant who serves in a wide range of capacities."

Mark contends that using the term factotum to describe journalists is giving them too much credit. He believes dilettante is the appropriate term. As he notes, he has written articles about space travel, genetic enginnering, and any number of other complex things and yet he'd never proclaim any real ability in rocket science, genetics, or other fields. Upon reflection, I think he's generally right, but with caveats.

Dilettante is originally defined as, "one who cultivates [the fine arts] for the love of them rather than professionally, and so = amateur as opposed to professional." Yet, the term carries its own weight of deprecation as it evolved to also denote one who interests himself or herself in an area "without real commitment or knowledge" (see the New Oxford American Dictionary).

Well, the journalists I know and work with on health and science beats by and large are committed to understanding what they're covering even if they don't have M.D.s after their names. They strive to grasp the complexities of what they're reporting on and to present it accurately and in a way that we not-even-dilettantes can understand and care about. The loss of this dilettante expertise is what I most lament in the slow demise of traditional mainstream media.

(Thanks to spellcheck and dictionary sites for ensuring that I spelled dilettante -- a French term -- correctly throughout.)