Why ask “What is a Journalist?”?

Since blogs got into the mainstream consciousness, the question, “Are bloggers journalists?” has popped up a lot. It’s being asked recently thanks to Apple’s winning the first round in a lawsuit against “online reporters” it claims posted stolen company secrets. (Yes, this is an oversimplification.)

Are these bloggers journalists? Are any bloggers? Are all bloggers? Where do you draw the line?

I just wanted to toss this out: The question, I think, shouldn’t be “Are bloggers journalists?” or even “Is this particular blogger a journalist?” or even “Is this blog journalism?”

When we’re talking about shield laws and disclosure requirements, the question should be “Is this story (or entry or post) journalism?” And the burden of proof should be on anyone who claims it isn’t.

Not everything published in a newspaper is journalism, of course. There are editorials and ads and comics and a host of other things. And not everything a reporter writes is journalism, either; there are personal letters and shopping lists and bad poetry coming from the same pen. And not every piece of journalism is in print, of course; there’s TV and radio and the Web.

So when we ask whether someone deserves First Amendment protection, or should be shielded by a shield law, it shouldn’t matter the site, or the author, or the medium. What matters is “Was the content journalism?”

If 10-year-old Timmy Tucker takes a picture of a politician accepting a bribe and puts up posters of the photo in the supermarket, you can make a strong argument that this is journalism — even if he’s just a kid. Even if he’s not on the staff of a paper or TV station. Even if he doesn’t have a blog.

What he did that one time, that one day, in that one medium — that’s journalism, even if he has never done it before.

Granted, that doesn’t help answer questions about who should get press credentials for a particular event, but I think its an important way of considering what is covered by the phrase “the freedom of the press.”