Not who, not what. Why?

So what's a journalist?

Or should the question be who is a journalist?

Or should we ask what does a journalist do?

I say, Why journalists?

The obvious answer, ironically, isn't because people need to get their news from somewhere.

I decided to ask people (my two roommates) why they thought we need journalists.

Roommate number 1: We don't. Journalists were necessary fifty years ago, or a hundred years ago, when we needed someone to get us the information. We don't need the traditional journalists anymore. Just someone to update and run news websites.

Roommate number 2: I remember talking about Yellow Journalism in my history class. I guess we need them because they keep an eye on government and all the big businesses . . .

And then there's the school of thought that suggests that journalism is a fourth branch of government. I tend to agree with this one, although I suspect that it may be self-aggrandizement.

But as I listened to the answers my roommates gave, I wondered where the traditional idea of journalists had gone--where reporters wrote articles that were informative and interesting. News media selling people news appears to be an outdated idea.

But I think that, rather than asking all sorts of complicated questions that don't really have answers, just answer me this: Why do we have journalists? Once we have a solid answer for that question, we can answer what/who journalists are, since they will be the people who fulfill that role.

So, my question for everyone reading this is: why do we have journalists?