[theapportioner]

What is the journalistic ideal, in your opinion? Should it be of a professional elite whose ethics counterbalance and shield against the conflicts of interest from corporatization, government, etc.? Should journalists see themselves as experts akin to medical doctors, as a group that prides itself on fairness and accuracy, to a quasi-religious level? How would it be policed, or should policing itself be sufficient?

Or should journalism be the domain for all? After all it is much closer to popular free speech than medicine, and the United States' tradition of the democratic, rabblerousing sort of journalism dates back to the colonial era. It could be much more subversive than a more 'professional' ideal of journalism, at the risk of destroying the sense of objective 'trust', although the case of the NYTimes, and many more previous, has shown that even the most highly regarded media outlets are susceptible to corruption.

Is the answer then, more democracy or more ethics? Or both?