Huh. You're absolutely correct. Am now embarrassed I'd never thought about it like that.
Your framing neatly resolves the blog era slap fight. It was about access, what became known as "access journalism".
Traditional journalists didn't support mere bloggers having a seat at the table (gatekeeping). And the elite would only deign to talk to established journalists.
For my part, I've always felt the elite were accountable to the public. I was just a constituent who shared my experience and thoughts online. I didn't care what any one called (labeled) me, except when the purpose was to dismiss or exclude me.
Anyhoo... Thanks! Journalism is a verb. I love it.
I don't believe Journalism is elitist. Yes, there are standards to maintain. But by definition that's what Journalism is. Proven and established rules.
It's great that the internet allows for access. It's a tool for all. It's not great that anyone who strings two words together and "prints" them (on the internet) is now considered deserving of the title: Journalist. There's more to it. Just like giving me a scalpel and a pad for scripts doesn't make me a surgeon.
What I believe happen is that as the internet disrupted tradional media, Journalism panicked. It needed revenue. It need to cut costs. So it cut corners. The Standards were abandoned. They were too costly and couldn't produce sufficient results for a biz model based on clicks, views, etc. As a CYA they shamelessly continued to call it Journalism even if it was a lie. Fake Journalism if you will.
Since they were all doing it, since they were all fearing for their jobs few stepped up and said, "No, this is not Journalism."
The first section about the importance of investigative journalism is quite good. And ends on an unexpectedly positive note.
The rest of the movie is a true crime story. How perfidy and obstinance sacrificed journalism on the alter of corporate greed, beginning in the 50s. The rise of the internet was just the final blow.
Thanks, I appreciate it. Given some of the replies up the thread there are others who really need it. Badly. It's sad to watch other declaring the Titanic is not sinking. They'd make great "journalists" ;)
Me: What's software architecture?
Booch: Software architecture is what a software architect creates.
That's why I had hoped you had your own definition.
I was present during the blog era. As an activist who tried to blog, I had some skin in the "are bloggers journalists?" slap fight.
I eventually settled on an expansive, explicit, actionable working definition:
Tada! You're a journalist.Bonus points for errata, retractions, updates.
Note that my criteria excludes most of the pundits, influencers, trolls, and infotainment spokesmodels.
Truly, there aren't very many journalists left. And we're the poorer for their absence.