If you have ever published anything anywhere then you are a journalist

[aolwien]

Fienstein trying to define who is and who isn't a journalist. Posting on discussion boards is journalism. Pamphleteering, making up flyers and handing them out on a street corner is journalism. Blogging, web publishing, citizen journalism, photography- all journalism. The permit you need to be a journalist is the US Constitution. Can not believe we actually have to have this conversation but in this age of free speech zones, who knows what's next. Thomas Paine's bones just cracked and he's rolling with the worms.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I've published fiction, short stories.

and a Master's Thesis.

That makes me a writer not a journalist.

jour·nal·ism noun \ˈjər-nə-ˌli-zəm\
: the activity or job of collecting, writing, and editing news stories for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio

I would add Internet News publications to Merriam-Webter. I could make an argument for bloggers who primarily blog about the news and report on current events.

Posting on discussion boards is not journalism.

[aolwien]

2. there is a journal function for this site

journalism

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Writing a journal doesn't make you a working journalist.

You are not working to report and publish news.

You are in an opinionist.

[aolwien]

7. So your definition is if you get paid or not

Pamphleteers don't get paid necessarily, people that publish free press newspapers often run at a loss and don't get paid.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. You want definitions?

jour·nal
ˈjərnl/
noun
1.
a newspaper or magazine that deals with a particular subject or professional activity.
"medical journals"
synonyms: periodical, magazine, gazette, digest, review, newsletter, bulletin; More
2.
a daily record of news and events of a personal nature; a diary.
synonyms: diary, daily record, daybook, log, logbook, chronicle; More
NAUTICAL
a logbook.
a record of the daily proceedings in the British Houses of Parliament.
plural noun: Journals;?plural noun: the Journals
(in bookkeeping) a daily record of business transactions with a statement of the accounts to which each is to be debited and credited.
3.
MECHANICS
the part of a shaft or axle that rests on bearings.
Origin

More
late Middle English (originally denoting a book containing the appointed times of daily prayers): from Old French jurnal , from late Latin diurnalis (see diurnal).

The journals here are not "a newspaper or magazine that deals with a particular subject or professional activity.medical journals" synonyms: periodical, magazine, gazette, digest, review, newsletter, bulletin;"

They are "2. a daily record of news and events of a personal nature; a diary. synonyms: diary, daily record, daybook, log, logbook, chronicle; More"

So they are not Journalism.

They are opinion, not journalism.

Alternet is a lot closer to journalism, not professional in many cases, but would fall under journalism.

What we do here is discuss issues of the day. That does not rise to the level of Journalism.

[aolwien]

12. rather elitist attitude

and that's your opinion.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. No, it is my comments on a profession, which is what journalism is.

[Cerridwen]

17. journalism.org

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power

6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional

9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience

link: http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

Much more at link; this was just the bullet points and not the narrative.

Can you point out where pay and/or employment or publication is included in the definition. I may have missed it.

[Jenoch]

29. I don't see anything in your list

that would make most of the 'news' blogs I have read as journalism. Non of them are objective reporting. They allbsupport some sort of agenda. That is not journalism.

[reddread]

31. what sort of agenda?

invading Iraq for "WMD's"?
I see what you mean.

[Jenoch]

39. I've never seen a blog like that.

[reddread]

40. do you have cable?

digital converter for your TV?
I certainly wasnt referencing "blogs"
they didnt lead the way into Iraq.

[Jenoch]

48. You're way off topic.

[meaculpa2011]

51. A profession requires lengthy specialized education and...

formal certification.

Journalists require neither.

[sufrommich]

36. Using your own standards it's not opinion ,it's journalism.

After all,someone wrote it on an internet forum.

[Sherman A1]

3. I have written for trade publications in the past

Many pieces published, yet I don't believe it was journalism, as you say "I was a writer."

[frazzled]

5. Okay, let me try ...

"An Obamacare death panel killed my grandmother!" There, I'm a journalist.

Somehow, your definition doesn't work for me.

[aolwien]

6. OK

Take that. Whatever your message if you believe it... share it it a million times (which is an option) Post it on several other messages boards, share it on face book a million times, link it to twitter... et voila, you're a journalist. Suppose Maddow, CNN, MSNBC picks it and broadcasts it. That does happen.

[frazzled]

23. whoosh

I'll just have to retreat from modern society, I guess. Look, I'm all for expanding the definition of journalist to adapt to changes in technology and society. But when you tell me any asshole with a keyboard is a journalist, it just sounds like foolhardy anarchy to me. In the world where everyone's a journalist, I'm tuning the "news" out. As Voltaire said, it's time to cultivate my own garden.

[Uncle Joe]

45. In a world in which 6 mega corporations own 90+% of everything on television, radio and publishing

you don't have a "cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press" or a "free and unrestrained press" what you have is a monopoly or trust serving as a lap dog for one point of view under the pretense of being a free press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Papers

President Nixon's first reaction to the publication was that since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations, not his, he should do nothing. However, Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[5] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[17] After failing to persuade the Times to voluntarily cease publication on June 14,[5] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication after three articles.[5] Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:

(snip)

On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[5] Ellsberg gave portions to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U.S. district court. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that "[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."[20] The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with the New York Times case.[19] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[5]

(snip)

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black[21]

Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summarize the reaction of editors and journalists at the time:

As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the 'free press' of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring 'burden-of-proof' decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America's publishers and broadcasters.
—Tedford and Herbeck, pp. 225–226.[22]

(snip)

[Egalitarian Thug]

53. +1 And that's the bottom line.

[reddread]

8. Rupert Murdoch

considering the hard editorial slants imposed by newspaper editors/publishers/owners, this discussion is ludicrous.
Keep an eye on the real picture and you wont have any problem defending independent journalism activities against
the Murdoch empire.
Unbelievable that people here are essentially siding with the tyrants and their press owning, information censoring, speech restricting non-investigative stenographers.
unbelievable.
is recent history that lost?
we have witnessed the decline and fall of a proud country and its free press in just the last 30 years.
every last one of us should know what happened when, and be able to cite chapter and verse.
wow.

[zappaman]

9. Ridiculous.

I've been published in 4 magazines.
I could say I'm a writer, but not a journalist.

[aolwien]

10. I really don't see the difference

and the Constitution being an non-impassioned body of laws shouldn't either.

[maddezmom]

14. Maybe but you might just be an author or a blogger

Not everything is equal.

[Cerridwen]

15. ann coulter, rush limbaugh, bill o'reilly,

jerome corsi, published authors. Let's not forget the gablers from TX who influenced so many textbooks though not publishing themselves.

"Not everything is equal."

[reddread]

16. qualifications of a real journalist

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

[Taitertots]

18. I was on TV once, but I didn't see it.

Some guy came up with a camera while I was on campus and asked what I thought about the politics and the government (2008). I unleashed an epic rant that was aired in it's entirety on PBS in some sort of documentary about college students and politics. A professor who saw it mentioned it months later during a chance encounter.

[RebelOne]

19. I have had a couple of travel articles,

plus some restaurant reviews published in a Miami city magazine, but I could not really call myself a journalist. I was a copy editor for 30 outdoors magazines for 13 years and did a lot of rewrites, but the editors got the credit and not me.

[Zadoc]

20. False.

As some who is published in a lot of places, you're not really a "journalist" unless you make a living writing.

[aolwien]

22. double false

on you

[reddread]

21. worked for newspapers and magazines

written books and been accepted as something of a scientific authority in a certain area worldwide.
won awards for photos of bus crash victims.
none of that precludes the next person over from doing exceptional work in the same fields.
unless the government seizes the licensing of 1st Amendment protectees.

[ProSense]

24. Jeff Gannon

Dean Chambers

James O'Keefe

Journalists!!!

[NuclearDem]

46. Allison Kilkenny, Rania Khalek, Amanda Marcotte, John and Molly Knefel.

Journalists, but not salaried employees of any official news outlet.

[ProSense]

47. Well,

"Allison Kilkenny, Rania Khalek, Amanda Marcotte, John and Molly Knefel. Journalists, but not salaried employees of any official news outlet."

...it's clear that not everyone is up on the details of the bill as it stands now. It does not state that a journalist needs to be "salaried."

Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140

As for your examples:

Amanda Marcotte
http://www.slate.com/authors.amanda_marcotte.html

Allison Kilkenny
http://www.thenation.com/authors/allison-kilkenny#

Rania Khalek
http://www.thenation.com/authors/rania-khalek#axzz2fXZUeSwM

Molly Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/molly-knefel
http://www.salon.com/writer/molly_knefel/

John Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/john-knefel

What about Kos, is he a journalist?

How about Spandan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153

[Bonx]

25. So basically everyone is a journalist.

:/

[reddread]

28. almost anyone could be

you dont really need to graduate from a journalism department to do the job right.
It wouldnt hurt, if thats your goal in life, but it should not be a restriction. on anyone.

[gopiscrap]

26. Interesting, I've published a couple of things,

I sure as hell wouldn't classify myself as a journalist.

[gopiscrap]

27. Welcome to DU

[Scuba]

30. Journalism is ....

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Very unlikely to be Orwell who said that

It only seems to have been attributed to him in 1999, about 50 years after he died. It was attributed to many other people before that, but Orwell is one of those people who is so admired that things get attributed to him just to give them extra credibility (like John Cleese, for something humorous).

In 1903 the book “Journalism as a Profession” was published, and it included a chapter written by Alfred C. Harmsworth who was the influential publisher of the Daily Mail of London. Later in life Harmsworth was granted a title and was referred to as Lord Northcliffe. Harmsworth noted that the goal of some individuals was preventing the publication of unfavorable news. This observation was an element of the statement being explored: 3

It is part of the business of a newspaper to get news and to print it; it is part of the business of a politician to prevent certain news being printed. For this reason the politician often takes a newspaper into his confidence for the mere purpose of preventing the publication of the news he deems objectionable to his interests.

In 1937 the adage was printed in “The Motor” as noted previously, but the speaker was only identified as “the editor of a big-circulation newspaper”:

“News,” he used to say, trying to get them to look at the thing philosophically, “news is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising.”

...
In conclusion, the earliest currently known evidence in 1937 ascribed the adage to an anonymous “editor of a big-circulation newspaper”. In 1953 the expression was used by a prominent newspaper editor in England named Brian R. Roberts, but he credited the words to the American press baron William Randolph Hearst. Attributions to Alfred Harmsworth (Lord Northcliffe) and several other individuals appeared later. The expression evolved over time, and the popular variant using “public relations” instead of “advertising” was in circulation by 1979. Based on current data QI would label the adage anonymous.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/20/news-suppress/

[reddread]

41. yet the sentiment is completely authentic

even if no one ever spoke the words, the truth remains.

[reddread]

33. lots of relevance in the life and work of this man

http://www.investigatingpower.org/journalist/ben-bagdikian/

[sufrommich]

34. Thomas Paine was not a journalist,nor would he call

himself one. Not everything published on the internet is "journalism",this is just more phony outrage that seems to wash over DU with alarming regularity lately.

[reddread]

35. phony?

Thats presumptuous at best.

[ladyVet]

37. Way to make a term meaningless.

I was a reporter for a local weekly newspaper for two years. Yes, I got paid. I didn't and still don't consider myself a journalist.

I've written short stories and one novel so far, with many other works in progress. I blog, and post on message boards. Still not a journalist.

[reddread]

38. better to start from that direction (all can be)

than to end here with NOT YOU!

[bemildred]

42. You become a journalist the same way you become a Democrat: you decide to be one. nt

[woo me with science]

43. Thank you.

People appear to be missing the critical point of this discussion:

The government has NO BUSINESS claiming the right to decide who is a journalist and who isn't.

Doing so is unconstitutional and a death knell to a free society.

[bemildred]

44. Seems obvious to me, I don't know where people get the idea you need permission. nt

[reddread]

49. Always wondered about

American submissives. Genetic or ingrained with coat hanger beatings?

[HappyMe]

50. I don't think so.

You are saying I can type up some stupid fact free claptrap in my journal here and that makes me a journalist? I post some goofy replies in the Lounge and that makes me a journalist? Nope.

Christiane Amanpour and Rachel Maddow are journalists, I am not.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

52. Whether you are or whether you aren't,

if what you're doing can be classified as speech, you are protected, far as I can tell:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I had to look at it, and what I suspected is true: they didn't make a distinction between speech and the press. Speech comes first in the list, then the press, and both are in the same clause of the amendment. That would mean they thought of them as the same thing.
So, I don't know if this post makes me a journalist or not. It does constitute speech. Same thing. That law defining a journalist is an absurdity, and has no force: you're protected regardless.
Or would be, if our courts hadn't made such a hash of all this stuff.

[reddread]

54. exactly

I have always wondered what the other definition of "inalienable" is?