What is a Journalist?

This week we discussed the notion of who constitutes a journalist. Does 'journalist' mean you are paid for your work, or should the notion of journalist be based on your skills, qualifications, duty to the public, accuracy or something entirely different? Ultimately there is no simple definition of a journalist, particularly as new technology increasingly gives ordinary people access to the tools of the journalism trade. The stereotype Garfield is presenting on the left is no longer the only way to think of a journalist.

I think this is an interesting concept and it will have implications for all future topics. For example, next weeks topic on public journalism will somewhat depend on this definition. Whether or not we can define bloggers as journalists is important to determining how effectively journalists are collaborating with the public. If bloggers can be called journalists this has different implications for the public than if we say they are not.

Personally I don't believe you need to be paid to be a journalist, and you don't need formal training, as there are many people out there with the skills of paid journalists. I think the main issues that surrounds this topic are ethics and accuracy. It is perceived that paid journalists possess more of these qualities, and this is what tends to elevate their status as a journalist. However as it has been seen on numerous occasions, professional journalists cannot always be assumed to have this integrity.