burna
Contributor
Burna -- and just what is arrogant about what I wrote? If you don't like the definition please tell me what is wrong with my definition of a "professional." Journalists have no agreed upon set of standards to define who is, or who is not, a journalist. (Note, there is in fact a BIG controversy within journalism as to whether bloggers, for example, are "journalists." But with no generally agreed upon standards, who knows who is a journalist.) As a result, there is no profession and without a profession, there can be no professional. It should be a simple concept.
Too many people, and perhaps you?, confuse competence with professionalism. My ex-wife was (in fact still is) an extremely competent journalist -- she just isn't a member of a profession.
Well, it depends on what definition of 'profession' you use.
The Oxford dictionary gives it's definition as "1 a paid occupation, especially one involving training and a formal qualification..."
The Macquarie dictionary gives a definition of "1. an occupation requiring advanced knowledge in some area, esp. those of theology, law and medicine...
I don't really know what the state of play is within the journalism industry and, to be honest, I don't really care. If you pushed me, I would argue that a Journalist is a professional and do belong to a profession. They have undertaken study in and obtained recognised formal qualifications in Journalism. Someone who has not completed the recognised courses in journalism is a 'writer' not a 'journalist'. But this again depends on which definition of 'profession' and 'professional' you want to use.
Describing someone as a 'professional' is not necessarily implying that they are part of a 'profession', it depends on the context in which it is used.
The way you worded your post came across to me as elitist, I'm guessing that is not what you were trying to convey. It is just the way it read. (To me)