Who or What is a Journalist?

Browsing through twitter the other week, I came across what, at first, seemed liked a simple question: who, or what, is a journalist?

Now, simple questions require simple answers. A journalist is someone who engages in journalism. Of course that leads to a much more difficult question; what is journalism?

Once again, this may seem simple at first look. Journalism is the reporting of current affairs, of facts, and the creation of news stories.

But it is more than this, and always has been.

To explore this we need to go back to first principles, and the birth of journalism in the centuries following the invention of the printing press.

The Emergence of Journals and the First Newspapers (a very short and potted history)

The printing press changed history. Actually, to be more correct, once people worked out the true possibilities of the printing press, they changed history. Information that once had to be labouriously copied down countless times by hand, or spread only by word of mouth, could now be disseminated all over the place with very little effort. Information that was once a precious resource became more democratic.

Starting with journals of current affairs, a new profession emerged. Writers started periodicals that quickly gained wide readerships.

From periodicals, newspapers emerged. And the very idea of news itself became a reality. And the power of those who controlled the news, the story, was assured. For news is not just about what happened, it’s about the why and how that impacts on you.

So newspapers suddenly had power. They could go against kings and parliaments - or lead the movement in favour of them. Journalists had the power to tell stories as they saw fit, and this meant the people were suddenly able to see what their leaders were up to. Of course, certain stories meant that journalists risked arrest or worse if they decided to go through with publishing them. But many who were prepared to suffer soon gained recognition, in principle if not reality, of the concept of Freedom of the Press.

Now journalists could advocate for change. And throughout the Revolutionary Period of the late 1700s they did just that. First in America and then in France, journals and newspapers were influential in steering the direction of the Revolutions, and none was more important than that tied to one of the most controversial journalists in history, Marat.

Was ‘The People’s Friend’ a Journalist?

Marat was the editor and writer of the journal, L'Ami du peuple, the Friend of the People. As the writer of a journal, he was definitely a journalist. He told the stories of those on the lowest rungs of society, the sans culotte, and provided information on how the progress of the revolution affected them. Seems simple enough. That is journalism.

But Marat was also a political heavyweight. His journal advocated for the people, attacked what it saw as the Revolution's enemies and placed itself central to the development of the revolution. He was not a disinterested or objective observer in the current affairs that his journal was reporting on. He was a participant in them. That would, probably, disqualify him from being seen as a journalist in modern times.

However, he fought like no other for the freedom of the press, and the development of journalism as a modern profession can and should be traced back to Marat, and others like him. He might not have been unbiased, but he knew what the press was for.

Marat and Yemini: The same or radically different?

So let’s explore some sacrilege; if Marat was a journalist, does that mean that Avi Yemini is too? The short and unsurprising answer is no. Although this might be delving into subjective territory.

The easy answer is that this is no longer the French Revolution, so a journalist/agitator is not what the world needs right now.

Avi Yemini is an agitator, just as Marat was, but their methods are quite different. Marat harassed, cajuled, and even got angry and upset at his readership. He was not one to placate them by telling them what they wanted to hear. Avi, on the other hand, simply pleases his readers by giving them what they perceive as easy truths and easy answers in a world gone slightly mad. In short, Avi is not independent of his audience, he is controlled by them. Marat controlled his own message.

Further, Marat used trusted sources. He became a kind of oracle by predicting events before they happened. And that is most important.

Where Avi uses sources, they simply tell him what he wants to believe about an issue, very few of his stories ever turn out to be true. His attempts at unmasking PRGuy are a case in point. He preferred to believe innuendo and rumour instead of doing actual investigation.

You cannot just make things up and declare yourself a journalist; if you could, journalism loses all meaning doesn’t it? And if we are to get anywhere with this investigation, then journalism has to mean something, as so does Journalist.

If this is not enough, there is one final important distinction. Marat wrote and published in the public interest. Avi Yemini writes in only his own interest. His name, and his power is what is important.

Marat, for all his many faults, wrote out of a genuine care for and belief in the people he was writing for. He genuinely suffered for his right to publish, even before his assasination. Did he live in a sewer, making his famous skin condition worse in the name of his own power? No, had he wanted power there were far easier ways for a man with his talents to get it.

The Lessons

So what do we learn about the nature of Journalism from these differences? Does this tell us anything about what makes a journalist? I think looking at the differences between Yemini and Marat reveals everything about what is central to being a journalist.

I would argue three things are central to journalism:

1. Reporting the Truth

2. Reporting in the Public Interest

3. Independence from Corrupting Influences.

These are all hard to pin down concepts, because they might mean different things to different people. So it’s important to break down exactly what I mean by these phrases.

The Truth

No one has a monopoly on truth. And one person’s truth can be different to another persons. So how can any journalist purport to tell the truth. That is simple: sources. Trusted Sources. Now, a source is not just a thing telling you what you want to believe. If you start with a conclusion, and then go searching only for sources to back you up; you cannot call that journalism.

But should journalists try to be objective? I think try is the important word here.

Because, is anyone, when telling a story, ever actually objective? We all have biases, either conscious or subconscious, acknowledged or ignored. Should journalism ever acknowledge this? Objective truth is an impossibility, or at least impossible to prove.

A source for information provided is therefore essential. It doesn't need to be named, if the journalist has proven themselves to be trustworthy in the past. Anonymous sources might annoy the audience, but they will always be essential to the proper operation of journalism, and have been central to many journalistic triumphs of the past. However, these sources must be checked and double checked for reliability, they cannot just be believed outright. Verifying sources should be one to the major skills a journalist has.

The Public Interest

It is very important for journalists to differentiate between reporting what is of interest to the public, and what is in The Public Interest. The gulf between the two is too vast for words.

Usually, “things that are of interest to the public” are little more than gossip. Of course this can be fine to report on, just don’t call that journalism. Sometimes though, this gossip can have actual effects on the public, and can be proven - then it could be argued that this crosses into public interest journalism territory. This is all subjective though, as are all these measures. This makes deciding what is and isn’t journalism a very difficult thing to prove.

I would argue that there is a simple (if flawed) test that can be carried out by both publishers and audiences. If you see a story and it changes the way you view an issue, or at least makes you question that issue - that might be a public interest story. If instead, the story makes you just go, ‘huh’, or laugh or has no real obvious impact on the world, the chances are that story is just a bit of gossip.

Uninfluenced and Independent

What is it that makes a journalist ‘independent’? In the modern era it could be as simple as not being paid by, or beholden to, corporate interests. But it is so much more than this. It also means not being controlled by your audience. You cannot call yourself independent if you are only telling them what they want to hear. Or if you only report on things because you know that it will gain you power because it will make you liked by your audience.

If you want to be independent, you have to be prepared to go against your audience - to tell them hard truths. You’re not a politician, your goal is not to be loved, it is to be trusted. And you can only be trusted if you are seen as being in a way, uncorruptable.

This, or course, doesn’t mean that a journalist cannot advocate on behalf of their audience. That is central to their job. But it does mean that this advocacy cannot control the outcome of their reporting.

Where does this leave journalists who work for the corporate interests that newspapers now are? It puts them in a very difficult position. Of course journalists need to be paid, but this money cannot be seen to have an influence on how things are reported. How can this be ensured?

That is an issue that is too complex to even attempt to solve here.

Some Conclusions

Most journalism is subjective. As a result, the difference between journalism and 'not-journalism' is also subjective. Who or what a journalist is, or what is expected of a journalist changes over time, and changes depending on who is talking.

Should we just give up and stop trying to define journalism in any way then? That, I feel, would be destructive.

Journalism, though subjective, is ultimately an attempt to inform the public about important truths, free from the influence of the powerful. It is important, therefore, to work out who is truly practicing journalist so we can decide who we should believe.

But we need to recognise that stories have biases, even if they are true. Most stories, at least important ones, are also political. Political bias does not disqualify anything from being journalism; if the bias is informed by fact and the politics is not about giving power to the creator.

Journalism is one of the most important jobs of the modern world. It is imperative to work out the real from the fake.