How do you define ‘journalist’? Focus on social role

What the heck is a “journalist,” anyway?

We’ve grappled with that question for centuries, and it’s even more pressing given the pending federal shield law and changing nature of media.

Two academics took a crack at it by examining the definitions of ‘journalist’ in state shield laws and trade organization membership rules, including SPJ’s rules. Their research was published Monday in the N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

The conclusion? It’s a sticky mess.

Jonathan Peters and Edson C. Tandoc, Jr., culled through a variety of sources to boil down the most common definition of journalist (p. 61): “A journalist is someone employed to regularly engage in gathering, processing, and disseminating (activities) news and information (output) to serve the public interest (social role).”

Peters and Tandoc rightly noted there are problems with how that definition has evolved, particularly when we talk about employment – that the person’s primary source of livelihood comes from journalistic activities. That excludes a lot of people who commit acts of journalism on their own time for the good of the public, or freelancers who might work a non-journalistic job to pay the bills.

Even SPJ’s bylaws definition of a professional membership is “Those who are… principally engaged… in directing the editorial policy or editing and preparing news and editorial content of independent news media products… students engaged in the study of these skills, and journalism educators.” That doesn’t necessarily mean “employed,” but it does rule out a lot of people who are doing professional journalism.

I just had a student tell me he was offered a job at a TV station for $8 an hour. If he takes it he’ll probably have to work another job, and under the employment definition wouldn’t be considered a journalist. That’s not right.

The two researchers agree that a better definition needs to be created.

Personally, I think we should lose the “principally employed” and “regularly engage” elements and focus on what journalism is really about: providing people the information they need to self-govern (Kovach and Rosenstiel’s definition).

The bottom line is journalism is about making the world a better place. It’s a social role, whether you get paid to do it or do it for love. Whether you do it 60 hours a week, or five hours a week. A journalist is independent, loyal to the citizen, verifies and informs.

That’s what matters – not what is listed on a W-2 form.


Defending the First Amendment and promoting open government are more crucial now than ever. Join SPJ's fight for the public’s right to know — either as an SPJ Supporter or a professional, student or retired journalist.

  • Neil Ralston

    As messy as the definition is among people who sometimes commit acts of journalism, it seems even more muddled for the public. Students in one of my classes at Lindenwood University recently completed an assignment where they asked fellow students to identify who they thought were journalists from a list of 22 names. The list included Bob Woodward, Dan Rather, David Broder, Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams. The top five people that our 59 respondents identified as “journalists” were Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, Larry King, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

    Jimmy Fallon’s name also was on the list, but only 38 percent of those who said they knew who he was identified him as a journalist.

  • PV Bella

    When the Constitution was written, the press was anyone who owned a printing press (hence the term), pamphleteers, and people who posted information on posts, trees, and other places where it could be seen. Many in the “press” were not employed so to speak.

    With the internet we have come 360 degrees. Anyone with a computer and can be the press. The whole point of journalism is to provide the best version of the truth using facts that have been checked and double checked.

    Politicians hate anything they cannot control. Remember it was some lowly blogger who broke the Dan Rather and Mary Maples scandal over forged documents. So-called “professional” journalists ignored it until they could not.

    Congress is overreaching its authority to define working press, journalist, or any other type of reporter. That usually happens when they fear their shenanigans will come to light from out of nowhere.

  • Pingback: But Really… is THIS Journalism? | My Blog()


Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn

© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ