Thoughts From All Over, and Plenty of Heat, on ‘Who\'s a Journalist?\'

In a recent post, I asked the question, “Who is a journalist?” The topic is a hot one, largely because of the recent focus on government prosecution of leakers and because of Glenn Greenwald, who broke a number of stories on the National Security Agency's surveillance practices for The Guardian last month and is an outspoken civil liberties advocate.

The post generated a lot of discussion in the online comments section, on Twitter and elsewhere.

Because I promised a few months ago to make this blog a forum for discussion, and because many people have worthwhile things to say, I want to acknowledge some interesting writing from recent days.

< p>David Carr, who writes the “Media Equation” column in The Times, took up the question in Monday's paper. In a nuanced piece (which I'm sure was in the works before my post appeared), he offered that “activism - which is admittedly accompanied by the kind of determination that can prompt discovery - can also impair vision. If an agenda is in play and momentum is at work, cracks may go unexplored.”

Jeff Jarvis, a professor at the City University of New York's journalism school, argued in a post on his BuzzMachine blog that asking who is a journalist misses the point. “It's the wrong question now that anyone can perform an act of journalism: a witness sharing news directly with the world; an expert explaining news without need of gatekeepers; a whistle-blower opening up documents to sunlight; anyone informing everyone,” he wrote. “It's the wrong question when we reconsider journalism not as the manufacture of content but instead as a service whose goal is an informed public.”

Jonathan Chait, in New York magazine, compared Glenn Greenwald to the consumer advocate and lawyer Ralph Nader: “Greenwald, like Nader, marries an indefatigable mastery of detail with fierce moralism. Every issue he examines has a good side and an evil side.”

Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, responded to Mr. Chait and took up related issues on his PressThink blog, adding to the criticism of the NBC “Meet the Press” host David Gregory. Several days after M r. Gregory practically accused Mr. Greenwald of aiding and abetting a criminal, Mr. Rosen wrote: “Gregory has made no public statement or even indicated that he's listening. This does not meet the standard any longer, even for media stars. In the New York Times newsroom there's no bigger star than Andrew Ross Sorkin, and he apologized the next day for some dumb things he said about arresting Greenwald. For someone like Jake Tapper of CNN, not responding to such a wave of criticism would be unthinkable. This is another reason David Gregory belongs on the Today Show, grilling salmon with some celebrity chef.”

I want to acknowledge a good point that many readers made about my post: that a willingness to speak truth to power should not be limited to government, but extended to corporations and other powerful institutions. As many people noted, my definition of “who's a journalist” is a narrow one, and I appreciate those who broadened or refined it.

I've written about changing views on objectivity before, as has Tom Kent of The Associated Press, who a few months ago persuasively made the case for maintaining impartiality.

Now the topic has come around again. I have a feeling it isn't going away any time soon.