Except for people who obviously fit the traditional definition, I have no idea any longer. But more importantly, I don’t really care. And I bet that kids who are growing up with the Internet care even less. I bet they intuitively understand how to evaluate information online across a variety of criteria, including reliability and bias. Cripes, is Fox News even “journalism”?

I can decide for myself whether a source of fact or opinion is reliable, unbiased, intelligent, meticulous and so on enough to be on my reading list. Good example: 99% of the folks you asked would say that Lou Dobbs is a “journalist” and would bet that Glennzilla is a crank in his basement. But to me, that would be perfectly, precisely wrong. I don’t have a label for Glennzilla - he’s just a smart, careful, opinionated, relentless political blogger. And to me, Lou Dobbs is a shameless, pandering shill.

Some people care about these labels, though I’m not really sure why. And Mike is probably pretty tired of repeating himself on this one - I sure would be. As to whether folks should do more than merely say what they think, I don’t really know how to respond to that. If more “journalists” simply said what they thought when it mattered, the US probably wouldn’t be in Iraq. It’s a big market. It can take care of itself. There is no spoon. The issue is dead, now it’s time to bury it. Everyone back in the pool.