I was quite impressed with John Watson's presentation on journalism ethics, particularly his heretic notion of licensing journalists. I have to admit I'd never considered the idea of a government body issuing journalism standards. But though it would be exciting to have the status of doctors and lawyers, I disagree with the idea of licensing of journalists.

The official recognition of the practice of journalism would likely bring higher standards and legitimacy to the journalism across the board. Under the government's wing, journalists might get greater protection as well, like a federal shield law. But this would all come at the expensive of a violation of church and state (i.e. government and media).

Even if a balance could be struck where the government enforces standards for journalism that don't impede its impartiality or depth, the media is really best at criticizing the media. If, after the media is done cannabalizing itself, some aspect we find distasteful persists, then it's because that form of expression is profitable. There's nothing we can do about that but take comfort in the idea that high-brow journalism will also remain profitable. To say that what so many people are clamoring for, even if it's Paris Hilton news, is unnecessary or low is to become elistist and lose touch with our own audience.

Besides, the idea of sanctioning who is and isn't a journalist runs completely contrary to the most exciting trends in journalism right now. For example, blogs utilize writing and reporting styles that simply wouldn't fly in a legitimate news room, but by adding perspective and interactivity to the news, the overall effect is an improvement in the quality of public discourse. And blogs finally answer the question of who will watch those who watch over democracy. Freelancing and self-publishing both should recieve a boost from new techologies as well, as falling production costs for quality content lower the price threshold for becoming a journalist.

-Casey