Define "journalist"
It's harder than you think!
Just before Thanksgiving, I did a piece in which I asked a simple but — I think —profound question: Who, exactly, qualifies as a journalist these days?
Is it Joe Scarborough? Joe Rogan? Me?
As I noted in the piece, it’s harder than it’s ever been in my lifetime to define “journalist” and “journalism.” And I asked you all — the “So What” community — to help, offering your own takes on how you define journalism and the people who practice it.
There were a ton of great responses and you can read them all here. I’ve pulled out a handful of comments that I thought were particularly insightful or thought-provoking. They’re below. (Note: I am not saying I agree with everything offered in these comments. But I think they spark discussion!)
“I think the crux of this question of defining ‘what is a journalist’ is intention and expectation. That is, the intention of the ‘journalist’ and the expectation of their audience. In the case of Scarborough, I would say his intention is to inform via covering a variety of current political events and news makers. I would also say that the expectation of his audience is to be informed. Conversely, I think Rogan's main goal is to entertain. I also think that the main expectation of his audience is to be entertained. In both cases I don't think that either are purely what I've outlined, there's definitely some bleed into the other category on both their parts.” —
“As Carl Bernstein has said — I believe that a journalist tries to get to the closest version of the truth — that they are reporting or writing about. I also believe that the difference between a true journalist and a broadcaster or pundit — is the journalist will always admit an error and own the error. Pundits just move on.” —
“A journalist is someone who delivers news and analysis (doesn't matter which; op-ed columnists are, in my view, journalists) and — this is crucial — abide by professional standards.
Does someone check information and sources? Does someone test the source of such information for reliability? Does someone exaggerate beyond reasonable limits?
These are all examples of principles that anyone claiming to be a journalist should abide by.
Others, and I don't care if they are on social media, a TV network, or screaming in a park, are polemicists, or maybe simply cranks.
The medium doesn't matter. There are journalists working on their own on social media, and polemicists on mainstream media.
My view is that professional standards and practices matter. A lot.” —
“Trying to define ‘journalist’ reminds me of trying to define ‘art.’ When I taught the earth and space sciences at the high school, one of my favorite associates was the ‘art teacher.’ We had some very interesting debates regarding what constituted art, and even more to the point, how to assign a grade at the high school level. Fun times to be sure...” —
“I think that a journalist is someone that adheres to a generally accepted set of ethical and professional standards that are recognized by most journalism schools as upholding industry best practices. This includes checking facts, employing standards regarding sources and credibility, and at least trying to maintain a semblance of objectivity regarding pursuit of the truth and presenting that truth to the public. Analysis is allowed, but only in the context of accurately presented facts which also have to be presented in their appropriate context.
I also find the ‘straight news reporter’ to be very nearly useless in the modern political context. Instead of reporting what happened, the ‘straight reporter’ then also prints/reports the dueling statements and press releases of the political parties on the thing that everyone agreed happened, and that leads to confusion and distrust among voters. I am reminded of the Kevin McCarthy ouster, which was often reported with some in the GOP issuing public statements about how it would make them stronger, other in the GOP making background statements about how stupid it was, and Democrats generally staying out of it while pushing the (very true) narrative of the GOP in disarray. Straight reporting would have left out all the statements. They would have reported on how McCarthy was shoved out. Which Members pushed it. How long it had been since the last time it happened. Set the unprecedented nature of the move in its factual historical context. And then stopped there, rather than allowing themselves to be used as platforms for self-serving statements everyone knew to be false, and then anonymous background statements designed to provide political cover.
I think some of the last pure journalists are the investigative journalists like ProPublica and some of the few remaining major print publications, and occasionally a news magazine like 60 Minutes.” —
“Regarding Joe, Mika et al.... ‘Broadcast journalism’ is a contradiction in terms. Broadcast is an entertainment medium, conveying news and information only to the extent that viewers find it entertaining. For decades, the mantra for local broadcast was "If it bleeds, it leads." More broadly, look at the content of the so-called morning news shows: sports, cooking, weather, fashion, celebrity chats, and an occasional pick up of a true news story from some other source. How many big stories can you recall that were broken first by a broadcaster?” —
“How about what a journalist is NOT? A journalist can report and/or analyze, but they should NOT attempt to influence. A really good journalist serves a purpose when they inform me via reporting and analysis so that I, on my own, can make up my mind about an issue in a more informed way.” —
What do YOU think? Do any of these come close to your definition of “journalist”? Why or why not?
Chris, as a number of your commenters note, it's adherence to professional standards and ethics that are key when it comes to defining what is a "journalist." A "real" journalist does the research, checks the veracity of sources and quotes, and (IMHO) relies on a professional editor to ensure that their sentences and story are clear and convey what is intended. The problem today is that not all "real" journalists are employed by MSM. You are not, as one example. I am not, as a Substack writer (but I have decades of experience as a mainstream reporter and editor). So it's hard for readers to distinguish, when they're getting news and information from so many sources, who is "real" and trustworthy, and who is not. I tend to trust the NYT but am also learning to read more discerningly. Great question; THANKS.
To me, a journalist is someone to documents and reports on the truth about what is happening in the world. I don’t see columnists as journalists in that sense. They are more interpreters and/or educators. Some, like Joe Rogan and TMZ, are entertainment vehicles.