I AM A JOURNALIST. SO ARE YOU.

[ElboRuum]

145. I must take issue.

"Journalist is already defined, we don't need new laws redefining words, in my view."

On the contrary, we often provide specific meanings for words to give them legal standing, for the purposes of making law. Legal concepts require specificity. Too vague and the law is inappropriately applied to too broad a scope. Perhaps we do not need laws which define journalist in a narrow fashion, a point I don't really feel the need to argue outside of the idea that "journalist" as the OP would have us believe breaks only the principles of a useful, common sense definition. To me, that's just silly that we need to "define" a journalist as a separate legal entity. But, that laws are considered for implementation is no fault of the chosen definition. If "journalist" is to have a specific legal definition, then it must have a specific meaning in that arena in order for the law to have a stick by which to measure out the concepts and realities of actions and persons under that law.

As for a writer being a writer, and in the specific case of definition in general, a writer can be a writer, but by another nuance a writer is not a writer. Should we always assume, in the conversant sense, that we should always opt for the most inclusive? The issue isn't that Shakespeare is a famous writer, but that he was prolific in the art form to the degree that others desired to read and act out his works, believing them great enough to warrant that attention. Even the most odious works of people who are contributing to the collective art whether published or unpublished qualify for that more specific definition. I offer that Tom Waits wasn't a writer until he decided to consciously contribute to the art, his bathroom wall scribblings notwithstanding. Please, when we say "writer" in the sense of conversing about someone's work, we know it is this more specific definition to which we ascribe.