However, the former managing editor in me just has to ask: Regarding paragraph 6… what’s a ‘groler bear’? (All in good fun, my friend…)

I am sorry Mr. Yong you are offended that I let you know I am an editor and educator. I thought it might be helpful for you to know, and attack if you wish, my credentials, given that yours are quite impressive and the reason, I presume, for this blog.

Mr. Robbins, I quoted from Mr. Yong’s blog precisely because of your response. I also addressed his use of “mainstream organizations” to suggest he is comparing apples and oranges in comparing “traditional” journalistic ventures for precisely the reason you suggest. He uses first person and does not indicate a collaborative effort or oversight in this work, despite saying he approaches his work the same way as he would in writing for “mainstream organizations.” That struck me at once and is at odds with what you describe as your experience.

We can argue until the cows come home that all AP style writing is journalism and those who write it are journalists–but we miss the point. I know “blogs” vary, and even mainstream papers use blogs as a means for writers to get ideas out quickly. Some are edited, some are not. But I know that most journalists who write for them are trained journalists who are accountable to supervisors and aware of the publication’s interests.

On the other hand, there are bloggers who have no such guidelines or accountability. This is a healthy discourse and typically breaks down when bloggers who have no such accountability insist on being called journalists. Fine.

I’m hoping, however, that anyone who hopes to use the “blog” then as a basis for information for a research project, for instance, doesn’t find that they’ve earned a big fat “F” on their project for failure to document their research with a source that has been verified by more than one individual via their own blog. THAT is still important to some of us in the academic world. To scientists or those who work in the scientific world, I would think it would be of utmost importance.

Wrong again!

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” Pretty simple.

Need a little more convincing?

How about this from the Seattle Times: “An amateur photographer who was taken into custody last year after shooting pictures of two Seattle police officers while they were making an arrest on a public street received an $8,000 settlement this week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington said this morning.”

Nobody has said this, and it is spectacularly dishonest of you to suggest that they have. It is a straw-man you’ve made up in your own fevered imagination, because you would rather attack arguments nobody has made than actually deal with the substance of the issue.

@J.B.H. “Methinks there’s a bit more involved”

What, exactly? Collaboration? Editing? Happens on many blogs. Oversight? Ditto – my blog for example is checked over by the Guardian’s legal team and given the once-over by a sub editor when needed. Or check out RetractionWatch/EmbargoWatch for examples of old-school journalism in the blogosphere. Is Brian Deer’s MMR journalism really only able to be classed as journalism because it was edited?

As Ed points out, you’ve failed to really define the terms you’re struggling to use in your comment, which suggests to me that you don’t fully understand them.

@Davide – I like and agree with many of your points. I’m more than happy about defining the *values* of journalism, in the knowledge that anyone can uphold these values. I find these to include things like accuracy, verification, the search for (and collection of) information, transparency, and fairness. On sinking ships, I meant the traditional business model – I, like you, believe that news is more diverse and more exciting than it has ever been. On press releases, I’m happy using them for story tips but I don’t use them when it comes to the actual writing and I prefer if people don’t.

“When I write for my blog, I do so in exactly the same way as I would for a mainstream organisation. I ask whether stories are worth telling. I interview and quote people. I write in plain English. I provide context. I fact-check… a lot. I do not use press releases, much less copy them. I don’t even own pajamas.”

The journalistic project is one that typically, historically provides accountability by virtue of staff oversight. In most “mainstream organizations” there would be at least one other person to collaborate with on projects, bounce ideas off of, fact-check, copy edit, proof, check sources, etc.

Blogs have their place, and AP style newswriting can be followed by any writer, but to call oneself a journalist because you engage in self-publishing is to call yourself a book publisher because you have paid a printing company to produce your own book.

Methinks there’s a bit more involved. Why not just call yourself a writer? Many writers interview people, fact-check, write in a variety of genres (including AP style or other styles of news writing), provide context, and get dressed before they begin writing. And many established and esteemed writers have been published in heralded papers such as the New York Times, etc. You get the idea.

Best wishes from a newspaper editor and journalism prof who worked previously for years as a freelance writer. Interestingly enough, I never called myself a journalist, although my articles almost exclusively appeared in newspapers.