Who has the right to define what a journalist is? (2)

If yesterday I advocated for the press and not politics to define what journalism is – and, above all, what it is not and tries to pass itself off as such –, today it is time to try out a possible definition. We could talk about professional ethics, service to the citizen, or understanding and explaining a part of the environment. But if I had to reduce it to its most prosaic and refined essence, for me a journalist is someone who informs by following a method. As simple as that and as easy to deviate from. My first temptation was to appeal to professional deontology, but it is not necessary: following basic journalistic principles – seeking facts, cross-referencing them, narrating them with rigor – already implies observing the ethics involved in such a delicate activity. Ryszard Kapuscinski said that cynics are not suited for this profession. I don't know if he was right, because many of them have a splendid future in pseudo-media and morning television talk shows. But a journalist can be cynical, disbelieving, nihilistic, or a worshipper of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as long as they follow the damn method, we will not be harmed.Furthermore, focusing on practice avoids us getting bogged down in the quagmire of moral considerations. The fanatics who invoke journalism to legitimize their harassment should not be disqualified from the profession for being aggressive, troublemakers, or bad people in general, but because acting from a political trench and with spurious interests has separated them from the method. In tomorrow's "Pareu Màquines" I will conclude this mini-series arguing why it is important for professional associations to be brave enough to draw a clearer perimeter on who can be considered a journalist and what consequences should derive from this definition. Nothing less than the future of the sector is at stake.