In case you had missed it, media is changing.

But you already knew that. You also know that the domain of the traditional journalist is being encroached upon by citizen journalists and amateur bloggers.

What everybody wants to know is: where do we go from here? How does the professional press stay 'professional' when the Internet and mobile technologies allows anyone to become a journalist? Should it even try to?

It would be a glib interpretation of a complex situation to divide the debate in to two camps: those who fully espouse new media and those who view it with a slight air of suspicion, as a source of unreliable information and low quality material.

According to The National Post, it would seem that Quebec's culture minister, Christine St-Pierre, is a member of the latter group, if it exists. Her recent proposals for defining professional journalism state 'the Internet is not yet a source of "original information that respects the journalistic method."' Is it really reasonable to trust 'traditional media' simply because they are traditional? The News of The World was a long running publication, with over a century of journalistic history, but it hardly seemed to support St-Pierre and Payette's so-called 'journalistic method'.

These latest proposals draw heavily on a consultation paper drafted by Dominique Payette, a former employee of Radio Canada. The principal idea is to effectively create a two-tier journalism system in Canada, with those who are categorized as professional receiving some benefits or privileges in return for respecting a set of criteria that remain as yet undefined.

Is this proposal ridiculous?

Well, yes, if it means that the position is bestowed by an official government body, such as The Quebec Press Council, as obviously that could infringe freedom as speech, as Barbara Kay points out.

However, there is something to be said for safeguarding the concept of the 'professional' journalist, in the sense that they are paid purely to produce content.

There have been many commentators who argue that the Internet is in fact limiting the possibility for writers to be independent commentators, as tides of unpaid writers contribute to well known news providers, like The Huffington Post. It could be argued that sites like this will ruin the future of professional journalism?

There is really nothing wrong with offering content purely so it can gain exposure and be read by others. Even the man that some would argue has almost singlehandedly buried print journalism - former Apple CEO Steve Jobs - doesn't see professional journalism as a thing of the past.

No one can deny that the Internet has revolutionized the way we access news and made user generated content an integrated part of major media organisations. However, many of the big players in the digital realm, like Apple, recognise the value of good content to their businesses are are keen to work with publishers.

As Poynter reports, Jobs "believes democracy is hinged on a free press and that depends on there being a professional press". It's true; a professional in a free country who is paid to produce content has no other financial bias, fears no government body, has the time and the resources to engage in investigative journalism and check and double check their facts. These are conditions that breed excellent journalism.

So don't despair; citizen journalism is not going away, but there is still a place for professional journalism, although it might not be necessary for a state body to title it so. Nor is it necessary to hate the web because you love to write - and get paid.

Source: The Huffington Post, The National Post (1), (2), Editors Weblog