Windypundit brings us an interesting attack and counter-attack on the subject of our “right” as citizens to blog.  What are we, us bloggers, in the grand scheme of things?  There is one thing we clearly are not, and that is “professional journalists.”  The reason, however, is not what you would think.

We cannot be professional journalists, according to Kipesqurie, because there is no such thing.  Journalism is not, despite protests to the contrary, a profession.  Kip states quite convincing reasons for this conclusion, and if you feel compelled to follow a reasonable definition of “profession”, then you will have to agree.

But this arises in the context of some  journalism prof arguing that bloggers, derisively called “citizen journalists” so that no one would ever mistake us for, say, Adam Liptak.  This prof, David Hazinski, says:

Supporters of “citizen journalism” argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don’t provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn’t journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

It’s not enough that a lawyer could lose his license for being discourteous to a judge, but now the “news industry” wants its piece of the action so that it can “monitor and regulate” us?  Because bloggers are so prone to”fraud and abuse,” that we wreak havoc by deceiving the public.  To take his straw man argument even further, Hazinski writes:

This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a “citizen surgeon” or someone who can read a law book is a “citizen lawyer.”

 Oh sure.  Perfect comparison, since posting on this blawg bears striking similarities to open heart surgery.  But let us not castigage the poor prof for one incredible stupid sentence, and let us instead castigate him for the full breadth of his absurdity. 

The idea of a “professional journalist,” as the good professor would call it, or the “occupational journalist” as Kip more appropriately characterizes it, is based upon the occurence of two things:  Some pays someone else to write something, and then it gets published somewhere.  While journalists would like to believe that they function under a code of ethics, do they lose their journalism license when the violate it?  Is something turns out to be false, can they be sued for malpractice?  While there are some fine journalism schools in the country, do all journalists have specialized degrees?

The answer to all of the above is obviously “no”.   We read papers and listen to the news because we want to be well informed.  We believe that the information they provide is reasonably accurate because all the other media outlets will make fun of them if they mess it up.  We know that some are better than others, and that some have biases that others do not. 

So what is the problem with blogging?  We have no editor to proof our stuff before it goes out?  We do it for free?  We might be wrong?  Then I guess we have more in common with journalists than I thought.  Except, we don’t promote our own for-profit entertainment programming as if it were hard news. 

If some news organization somewhere wants to have a say in what I post, they are more than welcome to do so.  Just let me know where to send the bill.