This guy is a serious snob. Does he really expect us to agree that only college-educated, media-employed holders of a degree in 'journalism' can be considered journalists? He needs to find, then learn to use, a dictionary. A 'Journalist' is defined as 'one who keeps a journal', which is nothing more than a diary, journal coming from the French word jour, or day. Literally, a journal is a day book. Ask any accountant or commercial book-keeper what the daily running list is called. You got it- it's a journal.

A reporter is a cat of a totally different colour, and that is what this article seems to be missing. ( In fairness, popular usage seems to miss this difference as well, and the two words tend to be used as if they are inter-changeable, when strictly speaking they are not.) I can agree with this author that the run-of-the-mill blogger is limited in his sources and other resources needed to produce an acurate story, and that the majority think 'reseasrch' means to read a few other blogs that agree with their own particular biases. They then write their own piece based on this impeccable 'research'

But to suggest that the amateur [b]journalist[/b] is a threat to society, as this guy seems to think, is just preposterous. Yes, the content may be biased, it may be the result of mis-information, it may even be downright self-serving and narccisistic, but it is an accurate report of what the blogger is thinking about his society, and probably his place in it. No more can be said about any other journalist, from Samuel Pepys to Walter Cronkite. Unfortunately, most of the so-called professionals these days are guilty of all of the above sins.

only college-educated, media-employed holders of a degree in 'journalism' can be considered journalists?

Why does this assertion sound totally right, also good, to me? Why am I completely uninterested, for all non-cynical purposes, in watching Sally next door play Citizen Journalist?



dictionary

Wordgames. 'Journalist' has a meaning, and yes, professionality is a connotation of that meaning -- in my understanding, anyway. Are you and I journalists? Hardly. Was I playing jackass journalist back in the day that I wrote long-winded articles for Megarad? Yeah. Was it really any good? Probably not.

That anyone can turn a free web account into a soapbox for their innermost thoughts isn't bad, and I didn't get a sense that he thinks they're a threat to society apart from further muddying the already-muddy information space.

It's also not real great though, apart from giving a voice to every little shining point of light, and if the Internet displays one sociological fact on a daily basis, it's that a lot of those precious little points of light are feckless idiots and should be hustled offstage where they can be quietly instructed in such crucial matters as critical thinking and punctuation.

Can a certain few of them rise up and get they bigpants on and do some really good work? Absolutely. You could probably make the argument, though, that those are possibly a certificate or two away from qualifying for a real position as such.

Apart from the Brave New Media angle of this, I think we're back to discussing the old 'The College Degree: What Is It Good For?' topic.

Qualification: Despite RoadRunner Hi-speed Online, it still matters.

There's a in the sand between those that are good, and those that are fucking great, but did you really expect encouraging, innovative words from a guy with a handle like 'the luddite'?

I agree with Vesudeva for the most part. I've gotten work out of being a mediocre, but passionate, writer/editor webhead. On the other hand, when bloggers and journalists bump heads, it trumps the mainstream and validates independent media.

Near the beggining of the war in Iraq, the NY Times reported that a certain protest never took place in the main square in Baghdad. An Iraqui that lives right off of the square, had live photos and video feed of the massive demonstration that same day, that easily illustrates over hundreds of thousands of people were there to protest US occupation.

It was fucking amazing too. They had giant chinese dragons, all types of shit constructed esclusively for this protest, like a two story wooden statue of Dubya hangin in effigy, like... it's was like... fucking nuts.

It's impossible to forget that. That's what I go to when I read articles like this, I remember. I remember... the Times never retracted that story, so to me, this is old news. The mainstrean media is what's become mediocre, and this is an old man trying to deny what should be considered the death throws of infotainment news and those of that ilk.

In a way, this guy is mediocre for not being to come up with a relevant, recent issue to fuck up with his obsolete opinion.

^^^^poor grammar

I just graduated from college with a degree in journalism, and I can tell you, the industry is pissing in its pants over all of this.

I feel as though pundits like The Luddite have zero respect for the audience. I believe people are smart enough to pick and choose. The sort of people who give a shit about their news coverage and care about professionalism can dine at the great media buffet of the Internet and lose nothing.

One of my professors stressed to us journalism is an 'ism' and not an 'ology.' Therefore, it means whatever the people who practice it define it to mean, and the meaning can change over time.

Sure, there are some brilliant writers out there who are also great at getting behind the scenes and telling us what they see. Those people make great journalists and elevate the 'ism.' But, journalists are not afforded any special privileges in our society as are doctors, lawyers or the clergy.

I love good professional journalism (The Luddite seems not to notice how awful most mainstream media has become), but I also love the promise of amateurs and dilettantes providing insight. I can tell the fucking difference.

Yes.

Discernment.