"9. A journalist isn’t a spy or a snitch.
It’s true that some of the wildest, most dramatic stories in the annals of this trade have revolved around the divulging of secrets. Watergate, for example — that required some first-class leaking and espionage.
But the workaday journalist gets maybe a few of those stories in his lifetime. Journalism is not an exciting merry-go-round of overheard deals and eavesdropping in antechambers — or, to put a more modern spin on it, hacked accounts and leaked documents. If it were, journalists would be universally mistrusted and would never get invited to any parties, which make up a significant portion of our food-and-drink budgets as journalists’ salaries are generally low.
This is where bloggers have fucked over journalists more colossally than I can comfortably express.
A couple bloggers posing as journalists spied, snitched — and did so in a way that benefited almost no one except the bloggers themselves — and now all producers of media are painted as untrustworthy vultures.
The true journalist relies on deep knowledge of his beat, close relationships with industry experts, and dedication to his craft. He has the kind of skill that makes for a 20-year career in reporting, not the kind of childish sneakiness that makes for a one-time pageview blockbuster."

I couldn't disagree more. Journalists are supposed to be hated. The fact that journalists want to be liked and invited to parties is how we get the country's most prominent "journalists" playing with squirt guns at Biden's house, buying into lies that lead to wars, and ignoring torture. What objectivity can we expect to see when the press merely wants to be close to the powerful. The press needs to be adversarial. If you aren't an "untrustworthy vulture", then you're not all that interested in sharing the truth. If you trade access for stories, you're a pretty poor excuse for a journalist (no matter how much you need the free meal).

"1. A journalist is trained in journalism.
Whether in the hallowed halls of higher learning or in the less-hallowed halls of a professional newsroom, the journalist has been trained as such. The journalist’s work has been pruned mercilessly by the red pens of professors, peers, and editors.
A bachelor’s degree in journalism, media studies, mass communication, or some similarly named program along with at least a few years under the tutelage of editors is the best preparation for calling oneself a journalist.
A blogger might have a ton of general writing experience and even a degree in English or something along those lines, but — and this is a critical distinction — a writer per se is not a journalist. Not any more than a keyboardist is a concert pianist or a mechanic is a nuclear submarine technician. A journalist belongs to a specialized, technical subset of the writing professions that requires specific training. As one who has edited many a writer who attempts journalism, I can tell you the differences are vast — not simply niceties and nuances."

Again I have to disagree. I say that professional journalism training does more harm than good. We have armies of people out there who know "how to write a story" and almost no one who knows anything at all about what they're supposed to be writing about. I'll take a historian writing about modern politics over a person who knows how to write for a large audience. I'll take a startup founder writing about business over someone who merely was assigned a story. I just prefer a scientist writing about science (That's why we have so many poorly researched "Cure for AIDS found" stories). Without knowledge and the ability to deliver context, you're just a stenographer. And I think that's why many journalists tend to be pretty poor at doing their jobs.

"4. A journalist attributes quotations and cites sources.
One of the first lessons you learn in J-school is that “common knowledge” doesn’t count as a source, and everything must have a source.
Did it rain 5 inches yesterday? According to whom?
Was the city budget cut? According to which documents? At what meeting? By which persons?
Is a certain chemical bad for the environment? What experts say so, and what studies prove it?
In keeping with the standards of objectivity, no fact can make it into print without having a firm attribution to some source outside the newsroom. Attribution along with objectivity are almost inviolable commandments, and the professional journalist is hard-pressed to cross them. Attribution in the digital age amounts to linking back to the source when a digital source is available.
The blogger, on the other hand, can play fast and loose with “everybody knows” logic and refer to the omniscient “They” as a source of statistics or other knowledge. And linking back is seen as optional, since many bloggers would prefer to claim information as their own and silo pageviews and PageRank on their own domain."

We have absolutely rampant anonymous citations from people we'd consider journalists today. We have sources close to an administration, off-the-record conversations, and lax citations. It's why even after prominent scientists said the BP oil spill was leaking upwards of 50,000 barrels of oil every day, prominent news outlets were still reporting company line of 5,000.

I could really go on all day but there's so much wrong with this.

There are real journalists out there. There are people that do really thankless work bringing important stories to light. Then there are people that get degrees in "Media Studies" and like going to parties with powerful people.