Avoiding a bloody revolution

There's much to agree with in the NUJ's 'Shaping the Future' report published today, but it is also underpinned by a flawed assumption which, I think, undermines its central message.

The report is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of quality journalism, and the significant erosion of public interest journalism that has come partly as a result of our ongoing technological revolution. And you can sympathise with their criticisms (if not the comrade style language) of 'short-sighted media employers'. It's true that, with media changing so fast, many senior media figures don't seem to be able to see past the end of their nose. Although whether its fair to say they are simply using new technology 'to reduce costs and boost profits, with the erosion of quality journalism [considered] an acceptable price to pay' is certainly arguable

But back to the underlying assumption. The report - and presumably the NUJ - conflates journalists with journalism. It assumes that not only is there a clear line between a professional journalist and a non-professional (itself a generalisation that can be challenged) but that journalism can clearly be distinguished from non-journalism. It can't. Or certainly not on the internet.

- If the same photograph is published on a blog and on the front page of TimesOnline is one journalism and one not?

- When Melanie Phillips published her blog, is that user-generated content or journalism? Is it only journalism if it's published in the Mail?

- If I write a report of an event I've just been to and stick it online - is it journalism?

In its section on 'User Generated Content' the report writes:

"The issue of user-generated content is not an issue of technology; it is one of defending quality journalism. This is not to say that all user-generated content is bad or that there are no quality blogs, but professional journalism, adequately funded and resourced, plays a role in society and democracy that needs to be defended."

This assumes there is one big bucket called 'user-generated content' and another called 'professional journalism'. It's just not as simple as that anymore. And though I'd entirely agree that public interest journalism 'plays a role in society and democracy that needs to be defended', that is not the same as saying 'professional journalism plays a role in society and democracy that needs to be defended''.

It seems to me that rather than try to erect walls around 'professional journalism' we need redefine the role of the journalist and reconstitute the Fourth Estate (which in itself will protect the professional journalist).

The blogs, photos, videos, podcasts are going to be published - to try to stop them would be King Canute-like. Much better to harness some of the remarkable energy of self-publishing and integrate more people and organisations into the Fourth Estate (which means starting by telling them what it is). Channel their energy towards public interest issues. If there's a bunch of people that really care about local services but believe funding is being terribly misused, help them to investigate it. Give them the raw materials and tools.

In any revolution it's entirely natural that the old guard will try to defend their ground. But this tends to end bloodily. Much better to work with the revolutionaries - especially when there is a common cause worth fighting for.