Who is a journalist? Is this even a relevant question?
As social media continues to change the landscape of the way in which news is delivered, the debate over this question and many others is ongoing. (Here is a good article). People from academia and the profession itself naturally have different and often polarized points of view on who is a journalist.
I think it is way too early in the evolutionary process to make any definitive statements. One factor, however, that may distinguish journalists, stands out in my mind. A clear demarcation exists between people who choose journalism as a profession and those who gather and disseminate information as a citizen whose primary occupation is not a journalist. People who choose to be journalists more often than not receive academic and professional training and make a living from it.
In theory and ideally, journalists aim at relaying the truth as a primary goal. Secondary reasons often vary, but they could include advocacy or activism based on a personal agenda. Here is where the non-professional journalist comes in (sometimes called citizen journalists). More often than not, these people have a primary profession that is not journalism, thus, when they disseminate information, it could be said that their primary motivation is to disperse this information with a particular goal in mind, and one which is secondary to simply airing the truth. (As I stated, this is the ideal situation. I realize journalists are not free of motivation or bias, and thus usually pursue an agenda at some level, whether it is their own or their editor’s or the company for which they work.)
Social media has changed the news-delivering landscape such that there is now unprecedented levels of access to information. So people who are not trained (training is defined as the particular techniques of writing different types of news and feature articles, how to find information, ethics and how to interview subjects, for example), nor choose it as a profession can now do the same things that journalists do in terms of disseminating information. This difference calls into question objectivity because “non-professionals” are seen to be acting with specific motivations for finding and releasing information. The other factor is that this information is conceivably readily available to all, with the modern difference being the level playing field that the Internet creates. (excluding the digital divide, it must be said). In terms of access to information, journalists historically were privileged members of society in that their profession created opportunities not readily available to the general public.
And although many profess objectivity, journalists seek out and obtain information with a variety of goals, whether to act as a whistleblower, to simply seek recognition or notoriety or to act as an advocate. But perhaps we are starting at the wrong place when we debate terms such as objectivity and bias and advocacy. In any case, as the debate rages on, it seems to me that this act of choosing journalism can be a starting point because going forward, clear demarcations between professional and non-professional news producers can alert consumers as to the source, which can help people determine reliability and accuracy.
It is also instructive to pay attention to who is debating this issue. It is mostly the journalistic community. There is no doubt that it is an interesting academic exercise, but does it provide value anywhere? Does it add to the conversation? An answer might lie in the fact that when the information is out there, does it really matter who discovered it and exposed it? Take, for example, the case of Edward Snowden. Does the fact that he is 29, has a girlfriend and used to bash whistleblowers online matter? Does it change the facts surrounding the government’s activity? Of course, it does not, nor do his motivation or morals. There may be some merit in debating who is a journalist if we want to get into regulating the profession. But, as I have stated before, I think this is dangerous territory because there are few measureable inputs and outputs, nor is journalism a science. It is an activity characterized by millions of shades of grey, by personal opinions, perspectives and motivations. You cannot measure journalism like you can a doctor or lawyer’s performance (eg lives saved, hours of training, cases won), so regulating becomes difficult. Of course, you can track the number of errors made in a story and if someone exceeds this threshold, they could lose their license, but this seems to me to be the only thing you could regulate.
So is choice the common denominator that could allow us to determine who is a “real” and “objective” journalist? Or do we need to back up even more and acknowledge that this doesn’t even matter anymore within the context of social media? If we decide that choice matters, where do we go from there? Do professional journalists still matter, and if so, what is their role in comparison to those who participate in spreading information as an activity secondary to their chosen profession?
(Also check out this interesting study, which found that Twitter and newswires do not differ much in terms of which delivers news first. The concluding paragraph of the study: In this paper, we asked whether Twitter and newswire providers report on the same events and whether either source prominently leads the other. Our study has suggested that Twitter covers most of the events that are reported by newswire providers and that many events reported in Twitter are not mentioned in newswire. However, for the events that both streams report on, there is no evidence that one source leads the other in terms of breaking news. In general, while Twitter can break news before newswire in limited cases, for major events there is little evidence that it can replace newswire providers. On the other hand, the greater coverage of hyper-local news observed within Twitter sup- ports the idea that it can be used for localised use-cases such as community policing or local search.
