Honestly, I don't care what you call people and it does not matter in general.

Where it matters: In the drafting of legislation and in court decisions that are defining journalism, creating a new caste system for Free Speech rights where some have more rights that others. It is horrifying what is happening and so far seems pointed in a direction that goes no where good.

This is serious stuff and should be of major importance to every citizen and journalist.

So, let's ALL be clear about what we are talking about because if you don't know how this matters, you may talk yourself and others into definitions with a very bad outcome. This isn't about what you call journalism at a party, in your home, among friends, by agreement among groups of peers. It is about what the law is going to say and is starting to say in court decision after court decision; in the increasingly controversial arguments for a federal press shield law in the USA, in the spread of credentialing among government entities. It is about what press advocates are advocating for in language proposed for legislation -- who they are including, who they are willing to sacrifice to get laws passed. This is no joke.

I think the biggest problem facing journalist today is in order to get paid for your work, you must work within the system of current media. You can write an excellent, well reaserched and documented article; However if you want to get paid, it must be in line with the views of the organiation trying to make a point.

Having worked as a journalist for some time now I'm often agitated by what is referred to as journalism and how any story by any mere contributor or a person with a view gets pushed and printed in the cover with more priority than a journalist's work.

Journalism lacks it essence as my work place proves- you don't become a journalist by studying journalism, you must practice it but even those who practice are sidelined by others who are put forward through unethical practices like nepotism. It's people who decide what is to be printed at the front that is blurring everything. Bloggers who claim to be bloggers alone want recognition as accurate writers, their facts shouldn't be questioned and it's people like us who love our profession but are so dissuaded by the environment around us that we give up the profession because handwork, accuracy and credibility doesn't account for anything. Everyone is a journalist and everything is journalism.

Interesting to read some of your submissions. There are points of agreements in all that you are saying, but i have failed to get a name by which you want to associate the blockers and those who have tried to write books yet they are not journalists by any means!

Can we come out with a name? Someone suggested sources, i don't know what the rest are saying! although i still think a source is someone who provides information to a journalist. I think they should be called impersonators if at all they refer to themselves as journalist?

George Matovu Kampala Uganda

Journalism is a profession. Fact that one can write ( a book or article) does not make them a Journalist. A Journalist is one who has been trained specifically in Journalism at a college or university. So all those bloggers or what ever they are called must just find another term - not Journalist.

Journalism is a profession. Fact that one can write ( a book or article) does not make them a Journalist. A Journalist is one who has been trained specifically in Journalism at a college or university. So all those bloggers or what ever they are called must just find another term - not Journalist.

DESDE CHILE PERIODISTA ES QUIEN ACREDITA SU PROFESION LUEGO DE HABER ESTUDIADO PERIODISMO EN UN CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS SUPERIORES/UNIVERSIDAD.
PARA SER PERIODISTA NO BASTA SER UNA PERSONA CREIBLE, HONESTA Y CONFIABLE.

its different from news and information.. everybody can behave as journalist but few who are real journalist.. journalist must have state of credibility, independent and honest..now days where information can be access from many media flat form, who ever committed credible independent and honest can be call as journalist even not working for one news agency .. its era of citizen journalism

A Journalist is a person who has nose for the news and capable of presenting news accurately, truthfully and balanced. Observing ethics has no exception in as far as qualities of a journalist are concerned.-Howard Mlozi, Malawi.

To be a journalist I think you need to have degree in writing or the equivalent that being a person who has written many articles for magazines, websites, newsworthy stories and not necessarily the kind people are looking for such as natural disasters, murders, rape, violence etc. A newsworthy story that will better society is one that will contribute to the betterment of people in general.

A beautiful sunset with autumn colors over a tranquil waterway. An enquisitive deer not knowing whether you are going to harm or just want ot take a picture of it, a humming bird with long yet tiny sticky tounge getting a taste of honey or sugared water in your back yard. A stroy of a hundered whales seen on an ocean voyage or fishing trip 300 miles north of Newfoundland.

A simple walk around one of Nova Scotias many walking trails can have many beneficial aspects that a writer can see and pen the words so people who love the beauty of nature will want to return and see all he writes. You don't need a degree just a kind heart and love of creation to be this type of journalist in my opinion anyway.

Journalist, apart from working for a media organization and getting paid, is soneone who gathers information, process it and publish in the public interest.Through his works he sets agenda and champions good causes to make his immediate and remote environments a better place. But while doing all of these, he is conscious of professional ethics by working according to the principles of the job - Chars Adesoji Adeniyi, The Nation Newspapers, Lagos, Nigeria (chalisa22000@yahoo.com).

What makes a person an engineer or a doctor?

Anyone who owns a media organization but does not practice the profession cannot be referred to as a journalist. A journalist nust be practically involved in the business of news gathering, writting and editing, reporting, present and produce a news programmes on radio ot televission.

setting up of a media does not teach one the rudiments of the profession.

Chinyere

The job of a journalist goes beyond writing a story, it is a solem pledge to serve the public through objective reporting of event. A person who is not trained in that field is not and will never be regarded as a journalist, rather they could be refers to as "Sources". This is because a journalist is mindful of ethics, rules of the profession as well as, house style of his/her agency therefore, he would tailor his report to suit the rule of the game. Individual writers are capable of creating anachy in the society because they write according to their own dictates.

A traditional journalist is one whose paid work was published or broadcast by news organizations. These people have set rules they work under. However, today's citizen journalists don't have to follow those rules. It is therefore important to create a new name for these non traditional journalists or content providers. The word Journalist comes from Journal. I suggest we combine the words citizen content providers to get "CITCONPROVISTS"

Ali Balunywa, The Netherlands

First and foremost he should be following principles of journalism.Anyone writing without these principles should ordinarily be outside the purview of journalism.The values of journalism are coming down as a result of new comers who have undergone a journalism course but do not believe in journalistic principles.Rather they bring a bad name to it. The situation of people who write or contribute something to media(or new media) is not something different than this.They cannot be called journalists.Some television channels call them citizen journalists or someone who can just click something and the TV channels can air it.The content can also have something of journalistic value but the individual rarely believes in it consistently.I think the bar should higher than this.Otherwise journalism is doomed.

Prashant Pathrabe

Anybody writing anywhere without a liabilty cannot be called a journalist. The newspapers had long decided it. Anybody writing occasionally but without a formal association with a newspaper has been treated as a writer and not journalist. One can argue that then newspapers also used to act as gatekeepers and did not allow publication by anybody. Yes, the Letters to the Editor column was there but the writers were never considered journalist. There were also, and even now there are, people who send well-written news items. They are accepted or rejected after verification. Now the net has replaced the newspaper in some ways. Anybody can start a blog, a so called news portal, on his own and satisfy his hobby of writing. But how can they be called a journalist? A journalist, that is why has been differentiated by the epithet working journalist as in India and many other countries. For a working journalist writing is not a hobby, nor an occasional flip. It is a regular serious business-profession to create a dialogue in the soiciety. It should not be trivialised by calling anybody or everybody as journalist. We should not accept the epithet Citizen Journalist. A citizen can be a journalist if he adhers to the ethics and undertakes the responsbility that is attached to the profession. Sorry, once a while giving an information to the TV channel or net, one may feel he has become journalist much to the daangers attached to it. The citizen at best is a source. Can a journalist or a news organisation accept any information sent by a citizen without verification? It is not possible. So once again our request is not to call anybody a journalist. He is only a source and could be given acknowldgement as such. Calling a source, a journalist would be an insult to the Working Journalist - Shivaji Sarkar, President, Indian Media Centre, Delhi Chapter and Course Director, Journalism, Indian Institute of Mass Communication (Janmashtami,Sept 2, 2010)

Journalism is journalism, no matter what modern trends have been introduced to redefine the profession. That one can blog or transmit information via internet does not make one a journalist. If you are not trained on how to gather and disseminate information as a profession, then write the much you may, you are not a journalist.

Chiedozie Nzeh.

Any person who is engaged in the profession full-time and adhere to set of ethics and guidelines only should be called journalist.

Thaha Muzammil Sri Lanka

Now-a-days, with the internet and its vast resources, anyone in the developed world can publish anything anytime, and the instant it is published, it is globally available and readily findable. This, of course, contradicted the prior definition of a journalist.
If you have a computer, can type on the keyboard and can publish what you wrote on the world-wide-web, in essence, you're considered a journalist. From this came the distinction between professional journalism versus amateur journalism/citizen journalists.
Overall, as long as journalists, bloggers, etc. report the news, keep their writings unbiased, maintain the journalistic ethics...it's all the same, it's the news. It may be presented in a different way, but its still news. Experience between professional journalists and citizen journalists are important and may vary, but that's in any field.

C.O.T Azeez

well, they should not be seen as journalists because at the end most of them provide subjective, personalised view and info. Journalists are professional, objective and should present both sides of the story, but bloggers and other people using social media tend to present their own side of the story, as most of them are activists or involved in wtever they are conveying to people

A journalist have to get trust from his society..a journalist information should be reliable at least to all. And also he personally have to put source of his report,which already been published..And journalist have great trust and a contribution..to any society.. If we think,, a police man..he also get information,,,,or any intelligent Branch people also a informer.. or he also get information,,and some times through its to society,,so that we will be call him a reporter or journalist?

But what about other..Just got information and create a page or video,will be a journalist? or reporter? i think such person should be known as a society informer or blog informer No its not impossible for any one to say such person,a journalist or reporter.. sdmurshed@gmail.com

A journalist have to get trust from his society..a journalist information should be reliable at least to all. And also he personally have to put source of his report,which already been published..And journalist have great trust and a contribution..to any society.. If we think,, a police man..he also get information,,,,or any intelligent Branch people also a informer.. or he also get information,,and some times through its to society,,so that we will be call him a reporter or journalist?

But what about other..Just got information and create a page or video,will be a journalist? or reporter? i think such person should be known as a society informer or blog informer No its not impossible for any one to say such person,a journalist or reporter.. sdmurshed@gmail.com

A journalist have to get trust from his society..a journalist information should be reliable at least to all. And also he personally have to put source of his report,which already been published..And journalist have great trust and acontribution..to any society.. If we think,, a police man..he also get information,,,,or any intelligent Branch people also a informer.. or he also get information,,and some times through its to society,,so that we will be call him a reporter or journalist?

But what about other..Just got information and create a page or video,will be a journalist? or reporter? No its not impossible for any one to say such person,a journalist or reporter.. sdmurshed@gmail.com

I think the conventional definition of journalist has changed with the popularity of social media and development of information technology. However, all who post, write or update news, information, articles, images and videso can not be termed as journalist.

To be a journalist, it is necessary to follow journalistic rules, values and norms. I don't think it necessary to be a paid for the work.

Many people write and publish themselves, church organizations, NGOs, company secretaries etc but this does not qualify them to be journalists because most of their reports don't conform to the basics of journalism. A journalist is one who has trained in skills of communication and especially to the masses and must have interest to communicate without gaps.

Journalism, like law or medicine, are professions. Sadly, in journalism, unlike law or medicine, there is no universal criteria that says who is or who is not a journalist. Although the term 'journalist' has been used to refer to those professionals--with training in journalism-- who work (for pay) to inform, entertain and sometimes educate the public via such traditional media as radio, TV, newspapers and magazines, with the on-set of social media, almost everyone with a blog wants to claim to be a journalist. I think this is both misleading and unprofessional because journalists and journalism used to be about "telling the story by presenting the facts in a fair and objective manner". This is far from the case when it comes to social-media. As such, bloggers are definitely not journalists, not by a looooooong stretch! Mwenda Njoka Africa Centre for Investigative Journalism (ACIJ), Nairobi--Kenya

only one whose professional job should be called Journalist.

a journalist should be limited to one whose profession is such. Those who create media but don't necessarily work for a news organization should be called something different; if they don't, then everyone would be considered a journalist and that would raise issues for journalists by profession.