As cheaper, more user-friendly digital technology changes how information is created, consumed and valued, one question has comes up: Who qualifies to be called a journalist?

I had thought that the question – which has a grating tinge of elitism about it, because journalism is not a private club where a politburo-like committee cherry-picks who gets in – was answered more than a decade ago by Scott Grant in his 2011 book We’re All Journalists Now.

But until last week, I didn’t know that offering Grant’s judgment – that is, anyone who has the motivation and tools to write and publish anything for public consumption on any of the many platforms available today can be called a journalist – could trigger the breasts of some men to twitch with the ferocity of an enraged buffalo.

In an exchange on a social media forum, the ugly word “quack” was deployed to refer to bloggers, social media scribblers and influencers who think of themselves as journalists. The outraged reaction took me aback.

That prompted me to start pondering what I think is a more interesting subject: Why are so many people still so emotionally invested in who qualifies to be called a journalist?

There are two elements to this debate: the legal aspect and the personal component, which is about the prestige of those who consider themselves the legitimate journalists.

I’ll focus on the latter (because I can’t satisfactorily address both strands in a 600-word opinion piece). It’s no surprise that, in Kenya, the people most obsessed about this issue are old-school newspeople who have been blindsided by the stupefying effects of new technology on news production, dissemination and consumption.

Many of them have found it difficult to adapt to these changes and see their livelihoods threatened. For those who trained and still work in traditional journalism roles, they feel that broadening the definition of journalism devalues their profession and expertise.

Their response is understandable. Many have dedicated years and effort to developing their skills and building careers from which they draw great prestige and respect. They feel that the gatekeeping control that their skills gave them is slipping away.

Many still worship the old definition of journalist – as a professional involved in a systematic, rules-based regular production of news content at an entity registered with the government that has in place some form of editorial process and enforces certain ethical standards and practices.

But this is a hopelessly antiquated fantasy. Things have changed dramatically. Established news outlets such as newspapers, radio and TV stations, and websites now find themselves competing with social media platforms for the attention of consumers.

As some of us see it, anyone who regularly gathers, analyses and publishes information about current events for public consumption is a journalist, regardless of whether they were formally trained or work for themselves or someone else.

I say the foregoing while also recognising that in Kenya, the definition of journalist affects who receives the legal protections outlined in Article 34 of the Constitution. That section guarantees the freedom and independence of the news media to determine their own editorial content (with defined limits).

The definition of journalist could also determine who gets access to events, newsmakers and information, all essential for anyone who wants to create and publish stories. Bloggers and others hauled to court for “offensive” things they have published could find themselves unable to use Article 34 as a defence – for the simple reason that they are not affiliated with an established news organisation and are thus not considered, in the eyes of the law, legitimate journalists.

But these rules were written for a fading age. Citizen journalists, bloggers and social media influencers now compete with traditional media outlets. These new, diverse forms of information sharing (not easy to control or regulate) are becoming increasingly popular.

They represent the future of journalism and enrich the form. Embracing them is good for democracy, and, besides, they are here to stay.

—The writer is a Sub-Editor with People Daily;