"Accredited Clinical Journalist"

[Grace62]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
I think what you suggest is an impediment to first amendment freedom of the press Ted. Here's why. Any such "accreditation," in order for it to have any meaning whatsoever, would have to carry some weight of authority. That means that the people who receive it would have more power in their profession, and those not receiving would risk being marginalized. This would impact how they report, and who they choose to investigate. That limits freedom of the press, something we rely upon for a free and open society.

Again, who would get to decide the standards, and choose which journalists pass muster? What about THEIR biases?

Here's an example. Think about the run up to the Iraq war. Well-respected journalists such as those at the NYT, NPR, and other well-regarded outlets were beating the war drums and accepting mostly without question that Iraq had WMD's. Those questioning this assumption were mostly on the outer edges of journalism...

I think your Iraq war example implies the opposite of what you think it does. If NYT and NPR journalists had been objective (as they would

Ted, the journalists who just reported the White House line pre-Iraq without much question WERE the journalists considered to be the most "objective" by the mainstream media at the time. They would've had those little letters after their names, giving even more credence to what they were saying. Also, they were duped by the White House, but that's another story.

The BBC was far less gullible than the American press, but that country still went to war with us.

I think you're trying to apply a concept that works really well in academia and in the realm of health sciences and some other professions and apply it to something that is more art than science, and that is journalism.
It just makes no sense to me to have some panel sitting around deciding who are the most worthy journalists, and giving them some seal of approval. That's like having some panel hang around the Met and decide who the really good singers are, and give them some special letters to put after their names. It's art. It just doesn't lend itself to that type of qualification. The person might sing well today, and then suck tomorrow.
We'll know if someone is consistently really good, because, well, we just know.