Journalism Should Not be an Exclusive Club: Who is a journalist?
That is the central question in the weblogs versus journalism debate.
Journalism likes to think of itself as a profession. But the key elements of professions such as medicine or law - an accepted course of study and apprenticeship, certification for practitioners, discipline for those stray from the ethical and professional standards of the field - don't exist in journalism. Not to mention that the pay in the lower rungs of journalism is only slightly better than fast food restaurants.
The beauty of journalism is that anyone can be one. You don't have to take a exam to get your journalist license, because there is no licensing. [...]
The one thing I've noticed in nearly 10 years of online writing is that whatever you write, you can expect to have it dissected and analyzed by your readers, who will let you know immediately if you are wrong or off point.
This is called open-source journalism, and it scares the hell out of most news editors and producers. They're used to telling you what the news is and you passively accepting it. Most aren't ready to allow news consumers to add their ideas and information to the reporting process.
But this is the direction that journalism should be heading. [...]
Anyone can be a journalist. That's what the First Amendment assures us. And the Internet is the tool that can give the average person the means to do so. While most of the Blogosphere is a cacophony of voices competing for attention, if you have something intelligent to say, you have a better chance to be heard online than in any other medium.
The people aren't always right, but they aren't always wrong, either. Interactivity keeps reporters and editors honest. It builds trust, and when news consumers trust you, they'll keep coming back for more.
