Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

Usual problem - how do you define a journalist and how do you say whether they've been jailed for being a journalist or not.

View on HN

This is the CPJ definition:

"CPJ defines journalists as people who cover the news or comment on public affairs in any media, including print, photographs, radio, television, and online."

I'd say that both Murray and Assange legitimately fit into this definition.

Unfortunately in the UK you're only considered a "journalist" if you can join the cosy boys club that is the NUJ, which is a bit like saying you're not a real train driver unless you're a member of ASLEF which is clearly nonsense.

Professional organizations are extremely effective gatekeeping mechanisms.

> people who ... comment on public affairs in any media

I mean... I do that, but I'm clearly not a journalist.

I guess if our fact-focused essays/comments about the issues of the day sufficiently annoy someone powerful, enough to get thrown in prison, then we're a journalist. At least the powerful, annoyed person thinks so. Something to think about while we rot away in solitary.

Don't we all comment on public affairs online?

Yeah this is the crux of the problem. As the definition of journalist becomes so broad that everyone falls into this category so to does the number of journalists going to prison.

The counter is that if there is too strict a definition of journalism - you put to many controls on the group. It almost feels like you should need some kind of standard to qualify as a journalist (again that has issues with it as well).

It's fraught either way but I don't think I am alone here when I say a lot of journalists around the world don't really qualify as journalists and are actually activists under guise (both on the right and on the left).

> The counter is that if there is too strict a definition of journalism - you put to many controls on the group.

How so? I don't think 'journalist' is any kind of privileged or protected group - so you don't lose anything by not being a journalist do you?

To the point that governments shouldn't be putting anyone in jail just for revealing their activity, there's a truth to that. But so far as we can use metrics like "journalists in jail" as a proxy for despotism, there's a loss when despots are hand-picking the journalists.

As to privilege and protection, that depends a lot on regional laws.

Yeah. I would make a simple common-sense addition, that this commenting is their primary source of income.

I’m at a point where I’m willing to throw the word away. It’s just too imprecise.

I know what a reporter is, and I know what a columnist is. I know what an editor is, and I know what an editorial stance is. I know what it means for people to do these things professionally as their vocation. “Journalism” might still have some life left in it, but if somebody told me they were a journalist, my follow up question would still be “what do you do?”.

How to define a journalist is a tough problem I can't easily solve, but I'd be inclined to say that once you do, any of them being in jail for any reason should count. The risk of overcounting the few journalists who might genuinely commit crimes unrelated to their journalism seems lower than the risk of undercounting journalists who were in reality jailed because of their journalism, but were officially for invented crimes.

"Journalism" was a temporary artifact of the transition from industrial to technological economy. There was a brief time when communicating broadly was hard and required capital. Now, anyone can do it.

It's important to remember how vulgar early (and pre) 20th century journalism was. Largely opinion, hearsay and sensationalism.

Later, journalism consolidated and developed standards to sell itself. Once technology put it in everyone's hands, it became so cheap that standards could no longer be a moat. We're back to vulgarity. I don't think there is any significant difference in the market between someone who went to the Columbia School of Journalism and a blogger.

"It's important to remember how vulgar early (and pre) 20th century journalism was. Largely opinion, hearsay and sensationalism."

Luckily today, that drastically improved.

It's a bit like "cyclist": someone currently engaging in an act of journalism, like a cyclist is someone riding a bike.

Are you suggesting a (jailed journalist) / (total journalists in the country) ratio to determine the level of control that the government is trying to exert?

I'd argue the second part is unnecessary. If country A jails more (percentage) journalists than country B, you know that either country A is trying to control them, or that country A has more criminal journalists. At least that gives you another lead to look into.

If you deliver information to the public, that the public needs to know to make informed decisions your a journalist.

Yes, consider it a role and not a guild.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com