What is a journalist?

Now that my journalism class is almost over, we were asked to once again blog about what we thought a journalist was and compare that with what we thought at the beginning of the semester to see how our opinions changed after everything we have learned.

However, I don't think my definition of what a journalist is has changed at all since the beginning of the semester. In my first post, I said:

"With each passing day, the media and technology are evolving more and more, making it easier for people to allow their voices to be heard. Because of this, almost everyone has some means of informing the public, just as journalists do. Maybe you aren’t on TV or don’t have an article in a newspaper, but you still have ways to spread information, such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. So as long as that information is both true and ethical, wouldn’t that make you a journalist as well? I believe so."

I still stand by this. Every single person has the opportunity to be a journalist. Of course, there is a difference between being a journalist as your career and being a citizen journalist. In fact, if a professional journalist writes something that isn't quite truthful, or maybe it's not very ethical, does that still make them a journalist? No. Sure, they'll have that title, but they aren't a real journalist. They aren't living up to what that title claims. They are a disgrace to journalism as a whole.
 
Throughout this semester I have learned a lot about principles many journalists live by. However, there are so many exceptions to each of these principles that it is hard to know when it is appropriate to apply each concept. I felt like there were many contradictory messages being presented to us, such as you must remain completely unbiased, but sometimes it's all right to put emotion and yourself into the story. Wait, how is that possible? I felt like almost everything being presented to us was like, "Sometimes it's ok to do this, but sometimes it's not." It all just seemed like suggestions rather than rules.
 
I spent a lot of time thinking about this and why there are so many exceptions to everything and why so many conflicting messages are being presented. I think I finally came up with a conclusion.
 
Journalists don't have rules that they live by. At least they shouldn't. Obviously there are the basics -- be truthful, be ethical -- but other than that, it's unclear. Journalism just takes experience. No one is going to be perfect when they first start. But the more you do it, the more you begin to realize when each of these concepts and principles are acceptable and when it is all right to make exceptions. That is something I don't completely understand now because I haven't had much experience with it yet.
 
The same thing applies for citizen journalists. Most blogs are going to be biased, and that is perfectly acceptable. They won't all be the same format, or have the same writing style, etc. Still journalism? Most definitely, because the circumstance allows for all of these exceptions.
 
I hope this post made sense. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that not only can anyone be a journalist, but there are very few solid rules that journalists should have to follow. Just make sure that it is truthful and ethical, and you're good to go.