This is a very interesting exercise. When I launched the new media program at the Medill School of Journalism in 2000, I did something similar. My goal was to define “new media journalism,” and I broke the term apart into two pieces. The “new media” part was actually relatively simple; but “journalism” was a real problem. Every source I looked at defined journalism either based on the type of publication it appeared in (e.g. newspapers) or based on the activities of journalists.

For what it’s worth, I just came across this definition from sociologist/historian Michael Schudson:

“Journalism is the business or practice of producing and disseminating information about contemporary affairs of general public interest and importance.”

It’s not a bad start, methinks, though one might now add “curating” to “producing and disseminating” … and might drop “general” so it encompasses niche as well as broad audiences.

@Miguel Carvajal – By “without self-interest,” I meant that what the journalist follows and reports should not bring personal profit to him or her. I know that this is idealistic, and in many countries, that is the opposite of the way journalism really works.

Of course, having good government is in everyone’s interest. The common good is (in theory) good for all (c.f. Schumpeter).

And as Jacqui Banaszynski noted, yes, definitely, journalism ought to be done in the public’s interest.

1. You tweeted: “Of course, that definition of “journalist” could also describe a researcher.” Yes. At the most basic level I think journalists and researchers (ie academics/scientists) are engaged in the same activities, or perhaps I should say they share a common root.

2. What activities? Here’s my definition: Journalists tell stories to engage the public in conversation. The hope of Journalism is that through the conversation, problems or issues facing the public should be brought to light, explanations offered, and solutions found.

The explanations offered can be built on lots of different ways of looking at the world, so the explanations can be quite different and sometimes incompatible. Like separating science from pseudoscience, the problem is in demarcation.

http://bit.ly/13UA4O

From Howard Weaver in 2007:
http://editor.blogspot.com/2007/09/are-you-journalist.html

His comparison to a scientist is intriguing, because it implies an open mind in testing hypotheses. So even if a journalist espouses an opinion, the scientific method would require the journalist to gather data as objectively as possible (and perhaps be peer reviewed).

And a quote from a class paper from me late that same year, on truth:
“Some of the most restless and interesting journalists have had trouble making any claim of truth at all.”
Jack Fuller, former Chicago Tribune president and publisher, in “News Values, Ideas for an Information Age.”

So that would cover Hunter S. Thompson and current folk who say everyone is biased and no journalism can be objective.

Then there’s the “first draft of history” definition for journalism, quoted in the paper and attributed most widely to Phillip Graham, former editor of The Washington Post.

The historical problem with that:
Writing down or verbally repeating information has always had sponsors, and at various times in history, only the wealthy could hire someone to repeat or write down their stories, thus making the first draft and history reflect only the viewpoints of the wealthy parts of society. History belongs to those who write it down. Perhaps journalism does too.

And that brings me back to the question that weighs most heavily for me: How SHOULD society fund journalism, or history. How can the fullness of society be written down (or photographed, or verbally shared) when in times of scarce resources, only the wealthy can pay for their stories to be covered?