[jur-nl-ist]

what a round-about debate.  what is a journalist?  i guess in the end, it really just depends on who you ask.  i heard on girl in our class say that a journalist has to have a degree in journalism.  i think that's ridiculous (no offense to her).  maybe it's because i have an innate desire to trust others...but i think anyone can be a journalist, pending they have the skills necessary to pass on the information.  so here's the thing...
here is what I think a journalist is: someone, anyone, that collects information and makes it available to others.  now...under this definition there are MANY subcategories, i believe.  reporters, entertainers, photojournalists, tv hosts (such as bill o'reily), sportscasters, etc.  i dont think that a journalist is merely limited to a reporter. 
i really appreciate this definition of journalism from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/journalism

writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing


the journalists job is to report in a way that the people will understand.  in a way that is pleasing to their public audience.  i, for example, hate hearing negative things about President Bush.  it really bothers me for some reason...so i choose to listen to people that dont constantly bash on him.  kinda weird, but that's how i feel.

now...does that mean that the people that dont report negatively on President Bush arent journalists? of course not! that's ridiculous!  i feel like if there is no opinion in the story, then it is moreso just scholarly writing, like the definition says.  it is the journalist that chooses which soundbites to put into a story knowing how people will react to certain phrases and pieces that they hear.  journalists WANT people to feel something about their stories.  they WANT their stories to be a big deal to them, whether it's about the state of the union or it's about an overpopulation of ladybugs.  the fact is, they are reporting it.  and if you wanna argue that "well he isnt absolutely credible"...well...100,000 people are going to HIM for their updates and only 20,000 are going to this "professional journalist" for theirs.  i dont know. like i said, it's a loopy circle.  i think trying to absolutely define a journalist in today's society is like arguing whether the Jimmer-appropriated scriptures are blaspheme and grounds for ex-communication or not.

Only on the Great and Terrible Day of the Jimmer will we find out...