Despite being anything but a simple job, Malta has countless opportunities for journalists. The requirements for a practising journalist are the possession of a press card, including an international one validating professional status for journalists in over 130 countries, issued by the Institute of Maltese Journalists, together with a DOI access card, entitling exclusive access to government activities and press conferences, political events, and even major cultural and sporting occasions.
Still, is all this a sufficient regulatory and legislative framework that enhances the role of responsible journalists? Obtaining a press card in Malta requires you to prove your status as a professional journalist. This typically means providing evidence of regular journalistic work or an employment letter from a recognised media organisation. The application process is relatively straightforward, and once approved, the access card is valid for two years.
Mabel Strickland used to say it takes seven years to make a journalist. The problem for those wanting to break into journalism is finding outlets in the ever-competitive industry, particularly now that newspapers are shrinking and not expanding. Whatever happens to the newspaper industry in the wake of the new social media revolution, in the opinion of many experts in the field, there will still be a need for journalists as newspapers gradually change in character from vehicles of news to ones meant to give greater expert analysis of events.
In light of all this, the pertinent question to be put is: who, exactly, can be considered a journalist? At times, as polemics about freedom of speech roll on, one feels confused about the use of the word "journalist." Are those who write a blog or an article in a newspaper considered "journalists"?
I don't think that anyone can uncontroversially consider himself or herself a "journalist," even though, more than once, matters might have been raised that hadn't been raised before and that could have been "news." Then the word "columnist" came into usage for someone who regularly does this.
Undoubtedly, how a journalist is commonly defined needs revision because it is outdated and inadequate to protect those who practice journalism in the 21st century.
The question "Who is a journalist?" has serious implications for those who claim shield law protections, and it is especially timely because of past revelations of government investigations of reporters in leak cases.
The Internet, mobile devices and social media have opened the door to new forms of journalism for bloggers, activists and hobbyists, among others, but a variety of texts and legal sources exclude those newsgatherers from their definitions of a journalist.
Some common elements can help us develop a definition reflecting how a journalist should be commonly defined. It should be someone employed to regularly engage in gathering, processing and disseminating news and information to serve the public interest. Someone who abides by the "Five 'W's": "Who," "What," "When," "Where" and "Why."
To be clear, such a definition should not be a recommendation. It simply unifies the elements that others have used to define a journalist. It would be unwise to adopt a definition that excludes unpaid bloggers and citizen journalists who gather, process and disseminate news and information on matters of public concern. All are capable of committing acts of journalism.
Although it might seem like an exercise in navel-gazing, the task of defining a journalist is important and practical, and recent events have brought it into sharp focus.
From a legal perspective, I would define a journalist as a person with a primary intent to investigate, procure materials through interviews and observations, and disseminate information. But, I am sure, some politicians, lawyers and academics would quickly disagree on that definition, questioning whether it would grant protections to people who are not reporters.
I would compromise by adopting a definition of a journalist as a person employed by, or in contract with, a news outlet for at least one year within the last 20 years or three months within the last five years; a person with a "substantial track record" of freelancing in the last five years; or a student journalist.
Any narrow definition might discourage innovation in news production and distribution. The digital revolution has created a collaborative, interactive type of journalism that combines traditional and new forms of newsgathering. It's possible the people behind those innovations wouldn't qualify for narrowly drawn shield protections. As a result, they'd face an increased risk of liability connected with their journalistic activities.
The contemporary debate about "who is a journalist" is occurring in two distinct domains: law and professional ethics. Although the debate in these domains is focused on separate problems, I would treat the central question as essentially the same
Still, is all this a sufficient regulatory and legislative framework that enhances the role of responsible journalists? Obtaining a press card in Malta requires you to prove your status as a professional journalist. This typically means providing evidence of regular journalistic work or an employment letter from a recognised media organisation. The application process is relatively straightforward, and once approved, the access card is valid for two years.
Mabel Strickland used to say it takes seven years to make a journalist. The problem for those wanting to break into journalism is finding outlets in the ever-competitive industry, particularly now that newspapers are shrinking and not expanding. Whatever happens to the newspaper industry in the wake of the new social media revolution, in the opinion of many experts in the field, there will still be a need for journalists as newspapers gradually change in character from vehicles of news to ones meant to give greater expert analysis of events.
In light of all this, the pertinent question to be put is: who, exactly, can be considered a journalist? At times, as polemics about freedom of speech roll on, one feels confused about the use of the word "journalist." Are those who write a blog or an article in a newspaper considered "journalists"?
I don't think that anyone can uncontroversially consider himself or herself a "journalist," even though, more than once, matters might have been raised that hadn't been raised before and that could have been "news." Then the word "columnist" came into usage for someone who regularly does this.
Undoubtedly, how a journalist is commonly defined needs revision because it is outdated and inadequate to protect those who practice journalism in the 21st century.
The question "Who is a journalist?" has serious implications for those who claim shield law protections, and it is especially timely because of past revelations of government investigations of reporters in leak cases.
The Internet, mobile devices and social media have opened the door to new forms of journalism for bloggers, activists and hobbyists, among others, but a variety of texts and legal sources exclude those newsgatherers from their definitions of a journalist.
Some common elements can help us develop a definition reflecting how a journalist should be commonly defined. It should be someone employed to regularly engage in gathering, processing and disseminating news and information to serve the public interest. Someone who abides by the "Five 'W's": "Who," "What," "When," "Where" and "Why."
To be clear, such a definition should not be a recommendation. It simply unifies the elements that others have used to define a journalist. It would be unwise to adopt a definition that excludes unpaid bloggers and citizen journalists who gather, process and disseminate news and information on matters of public concern. All are capable of committing acts of journalism.
Although it might seem like an exercise in navel-gazing, the task of defining a journalist is important and practical, and recent events have brought it into sharp focus.
From a legal perspective, I would define a journalist as a person with a primary intent to investigate, procure materials through interviews and observations, and disseminate information. But, I am sure, some politicians, lawyers and academics would quickly disagree on that definition, questioning whether it would grant protections to people who are not reporters.
I would compromise by adopting a definition of a journalist as a person employed by, or in contract with, a news outlet for at least one year within the last 20 years or three months within the last five years; a person with a "substantial track record" of freelancing in the last five years; or a student journalist.
Any narrow definition might discourage innovation in news production and distribution. The digital revolution has created a collaborative, interactive type of journalism that combines traditional and new forms of newsgathering. It's possible the people behind those innovations wouldn't qualify for narrowly drawn shield protections. As a result, they'd face an increased risk of liability connected with their journalistic activities.
The contemporary debate about "who is a journalist" is occurring in two distinct domains: law and professional ethics. Although the debate in these domains is focused on separate problems, I would treat the central question as essentially the same