The easiest way to "fix" American journalism is to treat them like lawyers: make them take a license test. Then, once licensed, if their reporting is proven to be false, misleading or simply moronic, their license is suspended or yanked and fines are imposed.

IOW: NO!!!

The second you let gummint decide who gets to be a "journalist", you've basically surrendered the whole game. Tom Paine would be spinning in his grave, and the thoughts of various quite sensible people that the cure for "truth" is more truth would have gone for naught.

Instead, our hapless coctail weenie crew have to be exposed for the flacks, hacks, and lazy a$$es that they are, publicly and repeatedly ridiculed, and not welcomed in polite society, to be shunned by all.

Cheers,

"That's why the Government can and does continue to do what it does -- because our elite establishment opinion-makers aren't just profoundly ignorant, but happy about it, grateful for it even."

Er, GG, you forgot something - most of We The People will say anything - anything at all - for the 6 and 7 figure salaries Big Corporate Media pays it's propagandists.

Remember, it's not a lie if you believe it... or if the check clears.

The easiest way to "fix" American journalism is to treat them like lawyers: make them take a license test. Then, once licensed, if their reporting is proven to be false, misleading or simply moronic, their license is suspended or yanked and fines are imposed.

In addition, it's time to institute a salary cap for reporters and journalists, just like in pro sports. A wealthy reporter will naturally become more conservative and more protective of his wealth. Instead, cap salaries at "living wages" with bonuses for "good reporting." In other words, force reporters and journalists to actually work for their money and tell the truth. Without "sticks," just like Wall Street, "people" will do whatever it takes to fill their pockets, even if it means destroying economies and strapping on the fascist kneepads.

"Shockingly, the press appears to be more interested in events that determine the future (i.e., who will be the next president?) than in events that look back at the past." - Dan Drezner

This doesn't hold water. I think a lot of press coverage is of 'scandalous' things which don't, in and of themselves, determine any future of significance. [Often the coverage is much more influential in determining the future than the event itself.] The NEXUS search issues mentioned do support Dan's point on the surface, but one could argue that these issues surrounding our presidential candidates don't have much bearing on who the future president might be. The media is framing the argument to help the public make these election decisions based on superficial points. When presenting a case, the lawyers put exhibits A, B, and C in front of the judge and jury so that they can make a sound decision. When exhibit A is a bowling score, exhibit B is a comment about race by an adviser, and exhibit C is the beliefs of a friend of a candidate, but that the context of what is going on in the country and where we want and need to go is left out, people are liable to make a bad decision.

So perhaps the question leads back to: does the media have a responsibility to report on certain things or with a certain intent (or lack thereof)? or is the media about business and bottom line and selling a product?

Also, it is not nice of Dan to have a blog with a comment form when the commenting mechanics are not functioning (and don't appear to have ever been functioning). I wasted a lot of time writing this comment there and then finding out I cannot comment. That's bad techno-manners.

I was sitting in a restaurant eating lunch when they showed the clip of Obama and Hillary "Bowling for Votes". I turned to the people at the next table and said, "So this is how we choose our leaders?" They laughed.

They have no idea though.

I have come around these last few months as to how screwed up our media really is.

I really appreciate you doing what you're doing. Maybe one day we'll have our nation back, and a truly free press again.

One can only hope.

A relative clause without a relative pronoun is generally known as a "contact clause". The zero relative pronoun is quite grammatical and unremarkable in English. See <http://uwp.edu/~canary/grammar_text/75-zerorel.html>. The construction began to appear in Middle English when omissions became much less constrained than in Old English. It can only be used when the relative pronoun is not the subject of the relative clause:

The man I saw was lame.
I read the book Glenn wrote.
Glenn wrote the book I read.

All these are quite grammatical English sentences. Occasionally, however, a contact clause, while still grammatical, can cause difficulties in comprehension:

The horse raced past the barn fell.

Clearly the results have been horribly skewed by the multitude of stories about the candidate eating cereal.

Two folks, one a very wise community organizer, and one a long time social worker, once counseled me that institutions matter, and it isn't wise to detonate an established institution until you have something with which to replace it. I agree with your broader point that we are not only poorly served by our current infotainment industry, we're actually being harmed by it.

But, their point is well taken. Let's imagine we could blow the industry up today, burn the remnants, plow the ash and the rubble under, and salt the earth. What then? It is still the case that we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. See for example Scott Horton today referencing an article by Eric Lichtblau.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002822

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/washington/09justice.html?_r=1&adxnnl
=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1207749899-lBigSIDayqVf0EPpet3GZQ

I'm not sure the internet is ready to shoulder the burden of institutional tasks currently (although poorly) undertaken by our media. And, while we could easily imagine the Eric Lichtblaus finding a home on the web, that doesn't mean his voice is as accessible as it is right now (being offered by both the NY Times, and the bloggers who link to him). In addition, we have that looming problem of net neutrality. I think you could agree that the current decentralized situation we have between the internet and the traditional media is better than either alone? I'm going to default to an evolutionary metaphor and argue that the system of information, and the institution of the media are evolving. We have mutations for sure. And, some of them are viable (consistent with life) and some are lethal. Not feeling particularly empowered to influence either one, I'm curious to see where this goes.