You express a very low opinion of the quality of journalism in today’s market overall. I think the profession has given you a lot of ground to feel this way, and it is a topic that should be constantly debated, but I would not go so far to say that the quality of paid journalism today is so poor that its demise would be no loss to society. We’ll never agree on that.

I’d rather people wrote stories they had passion for than to pay bills. So that’s our fundamental disagreement. You’d hate to see the traditional role of a paid journalist gone, whereas I celebrate the democratization, the openness and myriad voices that will ensue. And let me be specific – traditionally paid journalists are problematic for journalism not just because they are constantly pressured to dance to the beat of advertisers. It’s dancing to the beat (or perception of its rhythm) of the mogul or owner.

Traditional media is under threat also from fragmentation of media spending. This is driven by both the proliferation of new media forms as well as bad business practices and bad journalism within traditional media companies.

I would hate to see a future where the role of a paid journalist no longer exists – and not just from a point of self-interest. Traditional journalism provides a layer of abstraction between the main sources of funding (advertisers) and the creators of content (although the thickness of that layer is often called into question).

The true amateur has no problem here, because they are not seeking keep advertisers happy, but then they potentially run into the issue of not being rewarded for their time.

Maybe the future is one of vast pools of amateurs working together under an aggregator? I doubt it, but who knows for sure? In the meantime, it’s certainly giving people on all sides plenty to write about.

People do not need to make money from journalism to be as good as professionals. And it’s become apparent that many of those paid to produce content aren’t producing content that warrants being paid. That’s why people don’t access the content they produce. They get it elsewhere.

I do believe that we need a redefinition of what it means to be doing journalism, to be called a journalist. And to recognise,finally, a truth that was always the case – making money isn’t a key factor of journalism. In fact, it’s easily argued it impedes quality journalism.

I think your definition goes a long way towards redefining journalism in an age where the tools for reporting are far more broadly available within society. Journalism is an odd profession – you need no qualification or certificate, you really just need your own assertion that you are a journalist’ and the belief of the people listening to you. In the past you got this through the people who employed you. Now online tools enable easy self-publishing. Hence anyone can be a journalist, provided they display the characteristics you describe. Whether they are good at it or not is entirely another matter …

Twitter is an interesting development within the media mix, and its role as a medium for journalism I suspect still has a long way to develop. As a tool for breaking news and promoting stories, it is becoming highly valuable. It is also giving a voice to both eyewitnesses and concerned individuals that would otherwise have never been heard. And it is setting the news agenda by allowing the identification of trends.

All of these things I believe will be beneficial to journalism over the long term (as I feel they are already).

I think of the 10 elements, No 1 is No 1 for a reason, and that’s where most bloggers/Twitter, etc. will always fail to be journalists. Those who did not go to J-school and have professors (and then editors) drill into their head that the truth comes first will put gossip first. In our American culture, gossip rules, and I dare say that even the more stalwart journalists are standing precariously close to that line between truth-beyond-the-facts and what will get you ratings.