But then the bloggers appear, writers of no training but natural talent, positioned by chance to see events and parts of the world which the news machines cannot reach. Fox never asks the question raised by his huge box of witnesses: were the professionals any better than the amateurs? The answer matters for the future as well as for the past. With the spread of digital technology, anyone can now be their own publisher. In these new circumstances, what defines journalism? What are journalists for? Many bloggers and operators in new media have already answered the question by declaring the “mainstream media” redundant.
George Brock, International Editor of the Times, reviews Robert Fox's Folio Society 2000-page reportage anthology, Eyewitness to History. Nice review; balanced. Here's Brock on "journalism".
But journalists could think more clearly than they do about how to improve the level of trust in their work. The case for the professionals needs making all over again.
With humility. The term “journalism” has been in use for less than 200 years, but over the past century the word has suffered from mission creep on a grand scale
I think we've all worked with that mission creep.