Who could argue with that? Since you mention Gregory, it’s especially true of tv journalism for the most part. With 500 channels to fill, overnight ratings to consider, tv people gotta do what they gotta do. Which makes Ted Koppel look more & more like a giant. I don’t think your criticism applies as much to print journalism, though. I mean, Seymour Hirsch is what I think of when I read “journalist.” And that’s a long way from a protester recording who the cops are bonking – no matter how important that is.

“If I throw a bucket of water on a trashcan fire, does that make me a ‘citizen firefighter?’”

Yes. Although, that’s just a name. You could also write an blog-entry about it and be a citizen-journalist at the same time. Even more mind-blowing, you could simultaneously be  a citizen tax-payer, a citizen war-protester, a citizen stay-at-home-mom, and a citizen watch-wearer. The possibilities for naming are endless!

These are labels for actions. An attempt to describe and categorize. Not things in and of themselves (whatever things are).

Currently, for example, I am a citizen blog-blog-commenter. Although that shall be ending in a couple of seconds….

Where exactly do you imagine this line is drawn?

In the sand, at low tide.

http://wallpapers-diq.org/wallpapers/84/Obie_Trice_-_Cheers.jpg

unless you’re proselytizing, in which case they’re the same thing. 

Verb: Have an excessive and irrational commitment to (something).

if it ‘ought to be’ some particular thing, just your way, that’s fetishizing.

I also find it curious that he is not considered a credentialed reporter based upon the length of his show. He’s gainfully employed by a respected news organization, this should be sufficient, though I can see the need to prevent anyone from abusing the rights given to the fourth estate.

While I understand why the protesters are protesting, I still am confused by the end goals of the protesters. What resolution is there that is proposed to end the corruption, without causing damage to a fragile financial ecosystem? Socialism and communism, the two other leading economic theories, while valid theories have not shown the promise that was intended and with a coming shortage of available work due to the ability to produce dropping to near zero, perhaps it will be time for a new economic theory to emerge. 

To those in debate about nomenclature why not use the following terminology to dispel the argument: 

A commentator is someone who comments on a series of events and disseminates to others, they may also be eye-witnesses, however they do not use the majority of their media to act as an agent of news dispersal. A blogger is someone who posts commentary on a particular area of interest in an online format, but does not actively seek out new reports. A citizen journalist is one with a dedicated focus to news media, actively seeks out new stories, posts regular reports, usually of items they find of personal interest, adding value above commentary to include analysis of events.A  journalist would be someone dedicated to news, who actively seeks out new reports,  who posts regular reports on multiple issues, some of which may not be of personal interest and is employed by a credentialed employer.

It’s not just you, but I think one of the reasons you think that way is because Journalism has been co-opted by journalists under cover of the ivory tower. 

If it ain’t official, it ain’t real, says they.

“Telling people,” I think, is a big factor in journalism and the difference between it and witnessing. If you think about it, the establishment mindset is an Achilles heel of Journalism where we find Journalists circling the wagons lest their cocktail-weenie party circuit of access get disrupted. Establishment journalism is riven with tripe, and if people start figuring out that journalism is everybody’s business, call it “factual gossip,” then their jobs are in serious danger. I mean this. What does David Gregory have that any reasonably well-informed schmoe hasn’t got? Besides his Rolodex, I mean.

Well, if a Rolodex and one’s attitude is the only line between a busybody muggle and Edward R. Murrow, that is a precarious position indeed. I’m not saying it’s exactly so, but it’s a font of paranoia to be sure.

How is this not just incredibly worrisome and warranting large scale fucking action instead of mere observation of the “power of civil journalists”, as an example. You are getting steamrolled by authorities constantly–just look at the teachers protest–and all you do is claim something good about the end result, take it in the ass and ask for more.

I know we live such comfortable lives there is little reason to risk anything but fuck, we’re all going to be more than miserable way sooner than we’d like to think if we don’t do something now.

You might be less surprised if you could back up your arguments with something other than red herrings and One True Scotsman critiques. A person who represents themselves pro se may not be a lawyer, but neither is a jailhouse lawyer. Huh? How did that word get in there? Oh, because the effects of their interest brought about the same result as the True Scotsman would. You are quibbling in semantics.

So, rather than follow you down the capital-J Journalism “guys, we need a definition here” path, is it still unreasonable to say that no commentary can be considered to be a journalistic act? If you’re going to huff and puff for cut-and-dried definitions, let’s try starting from the other end and see if it makes any more sense.

In other words, who gives a crap whether it’s called “Journalism?” No matter what, it’s subject to 1A protections. Deal.

I’m a web developer.  I went to school, I’ve worked at several large companies and as a contractor for a while, I’ve been a full time developer for a few years.  The not uncommon claim that someone’s cousin or “son in high school” who has a blog can deliver the same quality product as me is* irksome to me. It suggests that all my work experience and training is worthless. I can see why it would be the same for a professional journalist.

*Used to be.  I’ve long since stopped caring about this particular claim :p

I wasn’t questioning whether the reporter was a journalist.

Your entire first comment consists of,  “Eyewitness. Not journalist.”

And I’ve edited my previous comment to be clearer.

As you point out, the freedom of speech still may apply – but I fear that down the road of narrowing the definitions will lie “freedom of the press belongs only to corporations actually engaged in the business of publishing with ink on paper; freedom of speech encompasses only moving the air with your voice and not the technologies that will send it farther than you can shout.”