Some Thoughts on 'Citizen Journalism.'

Journalism, in the most basic definition of the word, is one of various mediums of exposing truth to a larger audience. The relatively new phenomenon of "citizen journalism", is the so-called journalistic activities of people who have no formal or conventional journalistic training or experience, and are known as "citizens".
The truth really is that the ability to think critically, write concisely, focus a story, and know a thing or two about CP style and proper grammar qualifies a person to write compelling journalism. Not so long along ago, journalists had maybe a high school education with a knack for writing and a sense of curiosity. They branded themselves "journalists" then. Even though now, people with just a high school diploma and high marks in English could never be considered for employment as a reporter at a reputable, mainstream newspaper, magazine, website, or television studio.
Sometime within the last 25 years or so, our collective definition of "journalist" has been equated with a post-secondary education in media studies, and the subsequent employment of these "qualified" individuals at respected news outlets. This view is severely restricted and is not at all in sync with the history of journalism, nor its current state.
Journalists are also scientists, medical doctors, historians, sociologists, psychologists, nutritionists, urban planners and about a billion other professionals. There is no way to clearly and definitely make a distinction between a journalist who writes stories and has educational qualifications in media studies, or a person with a Master's degree in political science who writes a column every week for the National Post. The person with a background in politics has obviously impressed someone enough at the newspaper to be given a weekly column to express ideas and arguments in writing, has an editor overseeing what is published, and therefore becomes a journalist through their actions. The person who shoots a picture with their cell phone and writes a story without any training or knowledge of journalistic ethics is also a journalist through their actions. The distinction should be made between quality, well-researched journalism, and people solely clowning around with a cell phone and a computer. Journalism written by journalists proper, can also be absolute crap, just like the story written by Joe Schmo with his cell phone and written opinions and information.
The only important, crucial and paramount distinction that must be made between journalism proper and citizen journalism is whether or not it provides an original, trustworthy, newsworthy, coverage of a story. The person's qualifications, experience, and education are secondary considerations. Good journalism has been produced by persons without formal instruction. Bad journalism has been produced by those who have had training in university level media studies programs. It is left up to each individual what they to choose to believe, and respect as journalism. In the age of a lightning-fast exchange of information, it is impossible to define journalism within the confines of much more than the ability to expose truth. What people do with the information they consume is their own business. There needs to be greater faith placed in the public's crap filter regarding the information they consume. Not everyone bases their opinions about issues on blogs written by persons lacking formal journalistic training. Not everyone believes everything they see on CBC's website or in The Toronto Star. And neither group is wrong or better informed.
Information should be a free exchange in democratic countries like Canada. There is only a distinction between compelling journalism and crappy journalism. People can make that choice for themselves, and if they can't then that does not mean journalism written by non-journalists is not worth anything. Anybody willing to write deserves to be heard. Nobody is obligated to believe something they think is false. So keep up the flow of information and ideas, and stop wasting time arguing over what constitutes a journalist.