DEFINING JOURNALISM DOWN. Cleaning the mailbox (amazing how clogged it can get even when I'm
not working my ass off) and found a note from Mr. Miller of
Blogoland about a TechCrunch story from last week entitled, "
52 Percent Of Bloggers Consider Themselves Journalists" -- this number representing a four-percent increase from the year before. (Note: I'll only add his remarks on the subject if he permits me, as they were part of a private conversation.)
At first I wondered: Why would anyone want to be considered a journalist if he could possibly avoid it? Everyone hates journalists. They certain
don't trust them.
I considered that, for many of these fools, the title might still be a step up. Then a better explanation came to me.
First, a general answer: These days an unprecedented number of people in several fields want cred for something they can't or won't actually do. To some extent 'twas ever thus -- administrators who do not practice nor know anything about the sort of work they supervise, for example, have existed since before the dawn of management theory. But management theory sure increased their number.
And technology has done the same in other fields. How many more musicians, for example, do we have now than before who can't actually play an instrument? I don't mean as in, "You don't play no guitar, boy!" I mean they just program
machines to do it for them.
Now, a lot of them get great results, so it's not a bad thing in and of itself. But it also gives a lot of less-capable people the idea that, with the right equipment, they can do just like the big boys do. too.
Similarly, because they have the electronic wherewithal to publish as news sites do, a lot of bloggers consider themselves "journalists" even though they've never covered an event, nor engaged any information (whether first-, second-, or third-hand) with anything like journalistic rigor.
That may explain why they think they're entitled to be called journalists, but it still doesn't explain why they would
want to own it, given journalists' low status.
The Citizen Journalists it has been my curse to contemplate most are the rightbloggers, so I mediated on them for an answer, and came to this:
They want to be journalists not so much to elevate their own reputations as to lower that of journalism.
I've talked a lot here about the seemingly
contradictory self-image of rightbloggers: on the one hand, all-powerful and poised at any moment to destroy the MSM with the awesome force of their Citizen Journalism; one the other, helpless victims of media malfeasance.
Clearly the big papers and networks are losing money, but it isn't like Joe Wingnut's House o' Slander is getting rich off that. People can still tell the difference between the Daily Bugle and some guy yelling about Nobama socialism.
But they have reason to hope that this situation won't last. As more papers fold or diminish, it may be that people will notice that the journalistic conventions to which they were once used are going away, as the old ice-wagons and Fuller Brush Men did, and mentally abandon their expectation of them, as clearly no one has the money to keep
that coming anymore.
To help speed this transition along, we have bloggers increasingly delivering in breathless tones the BREAKING news that
something that didn't happen happened, or vice-versa. This, their confidence announces, is the
new journalism -- braying and blarghing, 24/7. It only remains for the punters to admit it.
It's possible that these guys actually don't understand that what they're doing is substantially different from what, say, reporters at the
Washington Post do. I doubt they miss that fact -- but they may at least intuit that, if they keep yelling loud enough, maybe other people will.
NEW VOICE COLUMN UP about the state of rightwing opinion journalism as shown by those National Review writers who beat up a colleague (Jim Manzi) for betraying his class. 
