Just what, or who, is a journalist? It’s a question that has animated newsroom chatter, E-mail lists and op-ed pages ever since Ken Hechtman found himself held as a suspected spy in a Taliban prison last week.

Hechtman is the intrepid adventurer and former computer programmer who decided to see the “other side” of the conflict in Afghanistan for himself and write about it for the weekly Mirror and the online publication Straight Goods.

He sent in long magazine-style pieces full of colourful detail, historical background and illuminating encounters. Nothing equivalent has been attempted, at least in Canadian journals. (Full disclosure: I know Ken Hechtman as an acquaintance, and count his brother, Fringe Fest head Jeremy Hechtman, as a friend.)

But many “professional” journalists took umbrage at his coup. A piece in Wednesday’s La Presse asked, “Is Ken Hechtman naive or completely irresponsible?” The Journal de Montréal called him a “pseudo-journalist,” thereby confirming the story about pots, kettles and the colour black.

Called Amateur

Meanwhile, the “Qui est journaliste?” thread has been running for days on the E-mail list of the Fédération des Journalistes Professionelles du Québec. A message to the Canadian Association of Journalists listserve appeared to answer the question: “To be a legitimate journalist, one must graduate from an approved university journalism program and work for a serious, respected news organization like the Globe and Mail, the CBC or CTV.” But then the writer added, “Well, that counts me out.”

As the writer implies, you don’t need a license or the stamp of mainstream approval to practice journalism. Still, I keep hearing plenty of snide comments from desk-bound colleagues: Hechtman is an amateur, an idiot for getting himself in trouble and a fool for being critical of the U.S. bombing campaign.

But what really ruffled the well-preened feathers of some, I suspect, was the happy admission that his war reporting was a “hobby.” And, just possibly, there’s a bit of professional jealousy involved here. Hechtman produced some of the most interesting original material from the region of any Quebec-based publication, in either official language. What’s more, he did it completely on his own dime, and without a full-blown journalistic pedigree. I think that would be cause for praise, not derision.

If Canadian media operated more as a meritocracy (and not the postmodern Family Compact it often seems to be), we would judge journalists by the quality of the work they produce, not by the quality of the hotels they patronize on a company expense account.

In Pakistan and Afghanistan, Hechtman practiced old-fashioned journalism. He operated close to the ground, developed contacts and gained the trust of his sources. He described their views in context, without a sneering Western condescension, and often with gentle humour. After reading his work, I understand far better the conditions and culture that produced the Taliban.

Contrast that approach with the celebrity journalism that now crowds our TV screens. A network star will jet into a hot spot with an extensive entourage, interview one or two official mouthpieces, get the pictures and be back in London, New York or Toronto the next day. It’s much less about journalism than providing a colourful backdrop for a familiar talking head or a stenography service for elite interests.

Alternative Voices

In the age of corporate media concentration, alternative voices such as Hechtman’s are more vital than ever. As Straight Goods publisher Ish Theilheimer editorialized this week, “We don’t call Ken a hobbyist. We call him a citizen journalist. Ken Hechtman’s journalism speaks for itself, credentials or not, established publishers or not.”

In the context of the war on Afghanistan (and the war on civil liberties back home), this is even more important. Too many in the mainstream media have accepted the notion that governments will of necessity lie to us in a more-or-less permanent “war on terrorism.”

Too many are content to repeat one-sided, pro-government accounts and to suppress inconvenient facts or perspectives. It’s an Orwellian notion. If a “free” media isn’t reporting all sides of this story, how are we as citizens supposed to judge the utility of this war, or of our own surrender of personal freedoms? That attitude debases journalism and our democracy. Professional journalist or not, Ken Hechtman has done both a service.