Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/800760
24 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 19 MARCH 2017 Opinion I t's funny how certain professions tend to wander off into grey areas all by themselves from time to time. I know, because my own profession – journalism (or what's left of it) – is a classic case in point. What is a journalist, anyway? There don't seem to be any hard and fast answers any more. The traditional 'Peter Parker' image we were all brought up with no longer applies to the vast bulk of journalism in the digital age. And legal definitions don't help much either: most were devised at a time before the widespread use of even television, let alone the Internet (the Broadcasting Authority, for instance, was originally conceived to regulate Rediffusion in the 1960s). Meanwhile, within the already vague and murky stereotype of ' journalist' there are divisions and subdivisions. Opinion columnists are now regarded as journalists on par with news reporters... but it wasn't always the case. Until recently, their proper place was (and, physically within a newspaper, still is) with the 'letters to the Editor' section. Not the news. But then, what constitutes 'the news' has also changed. In the past it was by and large limited to official statements, and any questions that might arise thereof. Today, official statements are usually supplied, with varying degrees of panic, in response to news stories... which often as not are broken by bloggers, not by the mainstream media at all. In all this changing landscape, there are however still a few defining characteristics we can all recognise. A journalist has to put his or her work out there in some form or other: the medium of choice may have changed, but something still has to be 'published' in order to fit the definition. Whether we look at the published product and decide it is 'good' or 'bad' journalism (and on whose standards we base that decision), is another question. Though we may have difficulty defining it, we can all at least recognise journalism when we see it. Well, most of the time, anyway. In other professions, however, not even that much is clear. I don't want to do the obvious thing and single out the two most maligned professions known to man, but… oh, what the heck: Lawyers and politicians. Anyone brave enough to try and come up with a workable definition for either in today's circumstances? To be fair, take them individually and it becomes a lot easier. As with journalism, there are certain work practices we can all still associate with both: lawyers represent clients in court (and elsewhere), politicians, um, 'do politics' and stuff... we can all see and recognise that with our own eyes. But put the two together, and what are you even left with? Judging by everything that's happening right now, I'd say it's anyone's guess. There are at least three ongoing examples of the oddities that arise from this conjunction. One, I'll admit, is extremely trivial in nature. But I include it all the same, as it is actually the most representative of the three. It goes like this: today is St Patrick's Day, the national day of Ireland which (for God only knows what unearthly reason) has now become something of a contender with Isle of MTV for biggest Maltese street party of the year. This year, a minor controversy arose when the St Julian's local council awarded a contract for an outdoor festival (including music and the sale of alcohol) in competition with the traditional, long-standing neighbourhood bars. I won't go into the issue itself – no offence or anything, but I'm not exactly holding my breath for the outcome – but something caught my eye in the news report. The bar owners won their court case; and their lawyer was Labour MP Luciano How many hats can you wear in politics, anyway? Raphael Vassallo