In the late 1990s, the staff at the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York took note of an exciting new trend in China. With traditional Chinese media under tight state censorship, people with something critical to say about their government had seized on the Internet as a new platform to publish their views. Their actions were not unlike the samizdat dissidents of the Soviet era or the poster-makers of Beijing University during the 1989 student uprising. But now, with the Internet, Chinese writers had the potential to reach a global audience.
In 1999, China arrested six people on charges of using the Internet to spread “anti-government” or “subversive” messages. I was the executive director of CPJ at the time, and we had to decide whether to take up their cases. None was a journalist in any traditional sense; reporting wasn’t their daily job and they didn’t write for established news organizations. But they were, we reasoned, acting journalistically. They disseminated news, information, and opinion. We took up the cases.
In the years since, CPJ has defended writers in Cuba, Iran, Malaysia, and elsewhere—some traditional journalists, some not—who used the Internet to get around official censorship. In CPJ’s view, these were entrepreneurial spirits using technology to battle enemies of press freedom. The many American journalists who supported CPJ’s global work readily agreed.
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.




Very important ideas for the Braziliana context: in this moment Journalism's professional regulations is under que Supreme Court avaliation.
Posted by LUIZ MARTINS DA SILVA on Fri 19 Sep 2008 at 01:21 PM
The concept of standards for journalism can and should cut both ways. Most bloggers would not stoop so low as to emulate the choices routinely exhibited by the so-called "Fox News" network. The Bush administration gave a White House press pass to Jeff Gannon, a.k.a. Jim Guckert, supposedly for "Talon News Service", but actually for a gay hooker to enter the White House routinely. Are the mainstream media investigating all the others in the White House press pool now, or have they chosen to ignore their supposed love of standards as long as the guy wears a suit and tie?
Posted by Bruce Martin on Sat 20 Sep 2008 at 01:11 AM
I think this has always been the question. If you look at the definition of journalism it's often circular: "journalism is information gathered by a journalist" or "journalism is content published in a journal."
yuck.
It has always been about defining what journalism IS and understanding how it's different from other content. Then we will know who a journalist is - by who produces that content.
The def. I always use.
Definition is the....
1. collection,
2. filtering and
3.distribution of...
accurate and honest information that has a meaning provided by the person who has done steps 1-3 above.
Posted by David Cohn on Sun 19 Oct 2008 at 09:04 PM
I'm happy this shift is becoming mainstream. Cf. March 2005:“Who is a journalist?” strikes me as a fairly useless question, and not just since the arrival of the Internet. It seems to me we should be asking “what is journalism?”
Journalists derive the title exclusively from the function of journalism — not how good they are at it, not what institution they represent, not what stories they cover — but the bare fact of what they do. Judith Miller and Matt Cooper of Time can’t claim any special place in American democracy from the word “journalist” appearing under their names on their business cards.
But the acts of gathering information, synthesizing, and disseminating that information publicly in an essentially verifiable report — those acts, when done in tandem, can and should receive special protections, no matter the context in which they are performed.
It’s journalism, not journalists, we should be struggling to protect. I think we sometimes lose that distinction (hat tip to Rebecca MacKinnon, who might agree with me). Whether bloggers constitute journalists is abstract and immaterial. What in newspapers and on blogs and on television constitutes journalism, now, that strikes me as a provocative question.
Posted by Matt on Mon 20 Oct 2008 at 12:48 PM
Of course bloggers were given access to the conventions--they were, and are, among their parties' biggest fundraisers.
Posted by Marla on Mon 27 Oct 2008 at 10:27 PM