Journalist Shmernalist

  A Journalist has always been defined as someone who digs up the dirt for the public, in my mind at least.  Isn't a Journalist just someone who provides the pertinent information or, in some cases, someone who digs up worthless information, as I have felt at certain times.  This is established as a right to all that are governed by the Constitution.  So, where's the discrepancy?  Pretty much anyone can be a Journalist, if you're doing what the name implies.

  I suppose that in the past, Journalism has been more of a "professional" career and so here is where the mix ups occur.  Do we embrace the traditional means of "professional Journalism" through implied unspeakable laws, or do we take the bare bones of what makes Journalism and allow anything that can possibly fit?  There are certainly pros and cons to both sides, but what are we if we're not dedicated to a stance, right?

  Although we're not going to get the most, shall we say, "intelligent" opinions and most accurate information on what's going on from these Journalist bloggers, all the information will be there none the less.  This just means that the responsibility switches over to us as individuals to decipher what opinions are relevant and what information is relevant.  Personally, I like the added freedom that the broader definition of a Journalist entails.  However, with great freedom comes great responsibility.  I think the American people are ready for it, don't you?