We have two definitions which are not contradictory. The Federation professionnelle des journalistes is made up of individual members. Therefore, people often come to us asking to become members. Our decision is based on a criterion which, without being perfect, allows us to function: does the individual draw most of his or her income from journalism? Is it the person's main occupation?
That is an operational definition as regards management of our membership. Our code of ethics also proposes the following definition: any person performing the duties of a journalist for a media organization.
I must admit, however, that the media world is undergoing significant change. A number of people at the table have already made that point. We are seeing the rapid emergence of all kinds of new media, either the Internet or other media forms, to the point where there could be some confusion as to what a journalist is or is not. We are currently giving that whole issue some thought. We are thinking that there may be a need to better define the term “journalist”. For the moment, we have been able to function perfectly well with our current definition, and we agree with the one proposed in the bill. However, some situations could be ambiguous. There are blogs that are clearly authored by journalists, whereas others are authored by members of the public.