Thanks for responding. I think this is a great conversation to continue.

Because I have no formal education in journalism, I believe I have made some mistakes. Please allow me to clear them up.

Upon reading the title "Are Bloggers Journalists?," I read that to mean "Are Bloggers (some of who have no formal education in journalism) Allowed To Call Themselves Journalists?" Had I been formally educated in all of the nuances of the written word, I may have found another meaning in that question as a title. In which case my entire post would be moot.

If you take a look at the comments on the post, you will find that the "local folks turned that question on its head" to "Are journalists bloggers?" was the leader of that USF session, David Harris.

Yet even today, I interpret the question in the same way. And since my post was based on my interpretation, please read on.

My inference that there were no bloggers on the panel eluded to the fact that all of the originally invited panelists are professional (and presumably formally educated) journalists. I took Ramajama's comment "bona fide" to mean the same thing.

Basically my entire argument is this: If "bloggers" (at least some of whom have no formal journalistic education) are to be compared to "journalists" (all of whom should be educated before claiming the title) in any way, there should be representatives of both parties. The fact that you belong to both groups gives you an excellent reason to speak as an expert, but I feel you cannot speak for those with no journalism background.

To answer the other question - "Are Journalists (considered) Bloggers?" Of course you can be. However, I would refer to you as a journalist with a blog, not simply a blogger. And yes, I say "simply."

You worked hard for that title of journalist. To be a blogger requires nothing more than an internet connection. Why would you want to be considered a blogger?

Lucas,

I'd love to hear more about "Port Charlotte Voice". I'm searching the site now, so expect questions soon! :)

I would definitely agree with the synopsis at the bottom, not all bloggers are journalists at all times in all their writings. However, not all news is journalism in my opinion. Some of it is nothing more than indirect lobbying and special interest propaganda. In that way, journalism and blogging are very similar indeed!

Talk to you soon.

-Stephen

The truth of the matter is I really could care less about the question of whether bloggers are journalists and vice versa. Seems like a topic discussed within very small corners of the universe. Look up "esoteric" on wikipedia and someone might have posted this question.

What's underlying the conversation is actually important. And that's the concern of journalists that their skills will someday be unvalued by readers. Their fears, I think, are mostly a symptom of their economic situation and not based on any actual risk.

On the other side of the aisle, bloggers have a revolutionary zeal about them and just want to be heard. It shows there's a real market for giving people a stage. And that's the point of sites (and printed publications) such as PortCharlotteVoice.com.

If you don't care, then don't write about it.

As to the "important" underlying problem:

Isn't the current "economic situation" another way to say their value has fallen? That's not a symptom. It's reality.

Too many readers want to be entertained, not informed. Therefore, journalism is of less (stockholder) value than a generation ago. To keep those readers as long as possible, media companies added more and more entertainment. To keep stockholders happy now, many of those media companies are cutting news positions. As you know, any blogger can entertain, so they are now adding those cheap "citizen voices."

And this new market of free (or even cheap) content - how long will that keep up?

By saying there is no risk, you are whistling past the graveyard.

I guess you misunderstood what I said about newspapers' economic situation. Reporters fear becoming irrelevant because the business is doing poorly. But the business is not doing poorly because they're actually irrelevant.

Just the opposite. Paid journalists are more plentiful than ever before as Web sites set out to hire content folks. And editors are more needed than ever before to help sift through this glut of information out there and let us all know what's really important to our days.

Sure, plenty of readers want to be entertained. All things to do compete against each other for people's time. But it's always been that way. There's no evidence that modern folks have a greater desire to be entertained and less of a desire to be informed than their predecessors. What's really changed is the options they have for fulfilling their needs for entertainment and information.

No matter what you say, I'm not going to buy into an argument that assumes people nowadays are just dumber, and have less desire to know what's happening in the world.

Take Twitter, for example. I can learn about the minutia of an individual's everyday life. That's sure evidence of a desire to be informed about what's happening taken to the greatest degree.

Ok.. that makes much more sense.

Not sure minutia of life shows a willingness to learn about what is "important," but do admit I have no evidence that folks prefer entertainment to being informed. That is my perception.

Thanks for taking the time to keep up with all of this...