I just saw this on TV: A Michigan state senator is introducing a bill to license journalists, which is at least an interesting idea:
It seems that the license is an optional thing, so reporters can report without one, but it would function as a stamp of trusted and verifiable to readers. The comments on the article and reaction in general seems to be strongly against it, but my initial reaction is that it's not a bad idea. I mean, if there are licenses to be hairdressers, why can't there be licenses for journalists as well? Hopefully there would be some kind of review process so bad journalists get their licenses revoked when they deserve (you know where this is going...)
Mr. Rosenberg would probably be one who would have a license, based on his many years of reporting and writing. But, if the licensing board was competent at all (which, knowing government, it won't be), we (Brian and the MGoBoard) could probably file a grievance to have it revoked after he demonstratably failed with the Michigan investigation. Snyder and the editors at the Freep as well, obviously. A license, like the MGoPoints here would serve as an indicator of the source's trustworthiness.
Another thought about the license: it should serve as a way to legitimize bloggers. Other than the journalism degree requirement, I think Brian (plus his minions Tom, Tim and FA) would pass the requirements listed in the article. Maybe it would stop the MSM from dismissing blogs as unaccountable and fringe.