God I crack myself up. Interesting question. Actually it's a question that's been beaten far beyond death. Still, lack of interest by others in (or lack of qualifications for writing!) his posts, though often encountered, has never deterred The Drunkablog. Made him cry, a little, but never deterred.
So let's glance at a recent post (the most recent besides this one in fact, duh) to try to shed light on the question. Did the Drunkablog, in this squib, commit journalism, or was it something else, something not worthy of the name, and the wet-brained one is just a wannabe, undeserving of "sources" or "shields" or "laws" like real musicians--I mean reporters--have.
As you can see (is there any other way to put that? As you can see. How do I know you haven't just this very second taken a red-hot railroad spike and dug your eyes out? When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me), the post is simply an addendum, accusatory in tone, to an AP story the Rocky Mountain News ran the other day about the never-ending (not that there's anything wrong with that) adventures of CU prof Ward Churchill.
Stop with the parenthetical elements, jerkThe post pointed out that the head of the American Association of University Professors, Roger Bowen, whose "expert on academic freedom" the AP quoted, has had some quite cherce things to say about Churchill, including the astonishing claim that the ersatz Indian has "never advocated violence."
Just read the post; all I'll say here is that I can't figure how it wouldn't be considered journalism. Through research I discovered facts that, it's reasonable to say, could be significant to the AP story, and published them. No shoe-leather, no source-working, no Goochville Gazette to pay the cardiac surgeon-like bucks most journalists earn. But journalism all the same.
And look at all the updates to the story. Never mind, don't. But in addition to confusion I think they show that I care about getting the facts right. Isn't that, too, a hallmark of jour--ah, screw it.