“Instead of mass professionalization, the spread of literacy was a process of mass amateurization.” The essay “Everyone is a Media Outlet” by Clay Shirky points at history in order to explain the present as well as predict the future of journalism and the media. While indeed the statement above sounds negative, Shirky’s explanation for the decreasing magnitude of professionalism within media is one that seems to walk the line in between criticism and embrace. As Shirky explains the transition our global society has gone through regarding the effects of literacy and then access to publishing opportunities, he illustrates the decline in the necessity of professional training within information exchange. It appears that, with the example he gives of scribes, once massive populations gained the means of their own literacy and production, the previously valuable “formal” authors became obsolete. One problem here is the legitimacy of the very word “formal” because while indeed "informal" journalism is on the rise does not mean that such should be regarded as entirely delegitimate.

While perhaps professionalism is growing less and less important with the rise of Internet based media outlets, there is something profound to be said for the democratization of public publishing. When the Iranian election protests occurred during the summer of 2009, an aspiring young student and singer was shot and killed amidst the crowd of protesters. While the footage of this young woman’s death was extremely gruesome and disturbing, it would have not been reported on so heatedly if it weren’t for the fact that the videos were uploaded from a bystander’s cameraphone. As mainstream media outlets simply would have not shown such graphic content, public outcry over government unlawfulness would not have been justified in the same way without such horrible but obvious evidence.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31488552/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/video-turns-woman-icon-iran-unrest/#.Tjme9XNuGoA

When Shirky argues that ‘everyone is a media outlet’ his argument is proven more and more so everyday. With the onslaught of newer and newer technological advances (cellphones, digital cameras, laptops, tablets, etc.) the number of individuals who are capable of and willing to speak and share their thoughts, views and pieces of history are rapidly growing. For Shirky, this emerging class of publishers has made professional journalism instances fewer and farther between, creating rarity within a world of amateur documentation. Although Shirky is right in reporting that journalism and the media are not the only spheres in which this shift is occurring, it seems that professionalism will not really be able to die out completely. As entire corporations are built on the backs of the journalists who do their dirty work, it seems difficult to imagine there being no “formal” sphere of news reporting on a daily, even minute to minute, basis. As fast as the world of amateur publishing is increasing, the world in which the professionals live still hold quite a lot of power.

In conclusion, as this mass amateurization takes place all over the world (including countries with lesser access to advanced technologies) it should most definitely not be regarded as useless or delegitimate. While with any newly emerging culture, society must make an attempt to understand changes and the reasoning behind them. In this sense, then, the mass amateurization of journalism, if nothing else, could indeed just be a sign that MORE individuals are taking the time to look, think and spread the word on current events whether they be political or not. And if you ask most people, that is not a bad thing.