UNITED
NATIONS, May
19 -- They
gathered in
Jordan in the
shadow of the
Syrian
conflict and
asked
themselves,
Who is a
journalist?
It
was an opening
session of the
International
Press
Institute's
"World
Congress," and
a range of
attitudes,
from
self-serving
to open,
were on
display, if
only by
twitter.
(Tellingly, the
event was not
live-streamed,
but hundreds
of tweets from
inside the
Versailles-like
hall conveyed
the debate.)
Corporate
for-profit
media is in
hard times,
and so it is
important to
them to
circle the
wagons and
protect what's
left of their
monopoly, such
the
way lawyers
and even
doctors do, in
the developed
world.
But
others on the
panel took a
broader view.
Laura Weffer
Cifuentes from
Venezuela
focused on
passion,
calling
journalism a
"way of
life." John
Yearwood said
simply that
anyone
involved in
the
mass
distribution
of news is a
journalist.
What is
mass, for
example
on Twitter?
Five thousand
followers? Or
like some
"professional"
journalists,
less than a
thousand?
Does
typing up
information
spoon-fed by a
public figure
make you a
journalist? At
the UN, which
Inner City
Press covers
in detail,
does
being a pass
through from
the views or
even "scoops"
of
particular
powerful
countries'
embassies make
you a
journalist?
What
is clear to
Inner City
Press is that
big corporate
media cannot
be
the ones to
decide who is
a journalist.
At the UN they
have tried it,
between Reuters
and Agence
France Presse
and Voice
of America
- and
at least for
now it has failed.
But
they continue
to try,
lobbying UN
media
accreditation
official
Stephane
Dujarric
(himself
formerly of
corporate
media) to
deny UN media
space to the
investigative
Press.
The
moderator or
main panelist
was Jim Clancy
from CNN. He
recently spoke
at the UN,
where
corporate
media have
tried to get
others thrown
out.
It was raised
to such
paragons as
the Committee
to Protect
Journalists,
who did
nothing.
They are
funded by the
corporate
media
which tried to
eject others.
Something must
be done.
From
the audience
in Amman, a
representative
of the Ford
Foundation (a
"partner" of
the endeavor)
posited that
it is the
public
who decides
who is a
journalist.
But the
professionals
among them
resisted,
referring to
education or
membership in
a union. Style
over
substance,
form over
function.
There
are acts
of
journalism,
some less
opinionated
that others.
To live tweet
a
Security
Council debate
is one thing.
To find fresh
information is
another. To
retype
spoon-fed
propaganda?
We're not
saying they
don't
have a place.
But they can't
define it.
Watch this
site.
, 
