Period.

But Edward Beryns, the father of PR, wanted credentialling, or, shall we say, 'licensing' for publicists. He tried to have this pass into law in the State of Massachusetts in 1992.

Perhaps it doesn't mean much because there IS NO CREDENTIALLING PROCESS For journalism.

God, if I see one more of these "journalism draws the weakest students" tropes, I'm going to scream.

OF COURSE, eddie, everyone but the econ and poli sci students are stupid weaklings who know nothing about "the world," unless you talk to the folks in the hard sciences, who have a few things to say about "social" scientists and their "research."

So climb down off your horse and stop coming off as a jerk.

Journalism grad schools draw people who already have degrees in something else (check out northwestern or columbia for instance). And accredited journalism UNDERGRAD schools allow no more than 30 (33?) (that's about one-fourth of the total, for you econ phreaks) hours in the major, requiring a liberal arts background.

And, if you think shooting commies is just fine, I suggest you turn in your passport lest the same treament be afforded "capitalists" acribes outside our merry little borders.

Robert in DC

I don't know Sgerna's training or credentials...but I'll bet she has more credentials than one weekend $50 seminar at the neo-conservative Leadership Institute. That's all Gannon's got.

And it probably requires more talent. Journalism programs draw weak students relative to other graduate programs. Whenever I know of a student who is interested in pursuing journalism, I strongly encourage them to major in economics or political science as well, so that they will actually learn something about the world. Instead, they choose as a second major or minor something like English, so that they will get more work on their writing. It is hard to take the journalism "credential" very seriously. (That doesn't mean that there aren't excellent journalists. It just means that the credentialing process doesn't mean much.)

Kevin's right too that the other White House journalists don't seem to be getting so worked up. Maybe that's because covering White House press conferences isn't such a plum.

I am not interested in defending Gannon or the process by which he gained access to these press conferences. If Gannon is part of some diabolical plot to control the media, however, then everyone has seriously overestimated the genius of Karl Rove. And if he isn't, then why is this of such interest to the Left?

Exactly, because they're almost as corrupt as he is. This only proves the so-called liberal media isn't.

If what the "moonbats" found out about Gannon doesn't mean anything, why isn't he still visiting the White House every day?

If what the "moonbats" found out about Gannon does mean something, then why was it up to some "moonbats" in pajamas to figure it out? Why didn't the reporters who sat next to him for a couple of years figure it out?

Not true, Europe adheres just as much to the "objectivity" model. The problem lies in the idea/the concept:

http://www.opednews.com/lower0204_objective_press_media.htm

Our Objective US Press; Protecting American People from the Truth Dr. Gerry Lower

...

Objectivity ... "an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought" (Webster's Collegiate) is a virtually mindless journalistic approach toward a similarly mindless social objective. Objectivity relative to what? By what value-laden criteria do we interpret the "news," by the values of Democracy, the values of crony capitalism, or the values of traditional western religion?

What we are after, of course, is a touch of honest human truth in American political reality, truth which is true for all observers and thinkers, truth independent of gender, cultural background or special interest. But, there is NO truth "independent of individual thought," the individual being the only known source of ideas, true or otherwise. No group of individuals, no human organization, has ever had the ghost of an idea. Objectivity implies a truth independent of human existence and there is no such thing. If there were, it would be relevant to nothing human.

Er, the other reporters in the White House press corps knew about him, and they're not anywhere near as worked up about this as you moonbats are.

I could go on, but reason is lost on Guckert’s defenders.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHH!!!

1) You're comparing apples to oranges. The European press has never claimed to be anything but partisan. Everyone who reads a newspaper in any European country knows the politics of the paper. Fortunately, each country has many, many dailies. There's something for everyone.

2) The Republican Party line, "who cares what Europe thinks," makes your whole argument moot anyway.

3) Sgrena is a journalist by training and by profession. Guckert is neither. He was a hack plagiarist who copied and pasted his "articles" from White House talking points and lifted entire paragraphs from other legitimate reporters.

4) I don't think anyone cares if there are partisan reporters in the White House, emphasis on "reporters." Each reporter brings a certain bias into the White House. Their job, however, is to leave as much of that bias as possible out of their reporting.

5) No one is as insulted by Guckert's presence as they are by his disingenuousness. He was an imposter in every sense of the word. And someone at some level above Scott McClellan facilitated his presence there.

I could go on, but reason is lost on Guckert's defenders.

She's a journalist for the same reason Robert Fisk and the folks at Al Jazeera are "journalists."

Objectivety is a big myth. But there is a basic law in journalism: Comment is free, but facts are sacred.

And if it comes to basic informations about the incidents, why should I trust the US government more than the Sgrena?

see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Probably this is the kind of journalism he prefers:

http://www.journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm

"JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?

Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually."

America is a big country with many wonderful minds, Mr Joyner is not one of them. I consider this a very sick, and well planned libel. Is this American tolerance or just the new kind of cold war rhetoric?

KRAUT