New Rule: whenever someone is interviewing a politician and the politician (a) doesn’t answer the question, or (b) replies with a rather plain lie, the “journalist,” in order to earn that title, must follow up and insist upon an answer, and a truthful one. No more letting any statement a politician makes go unchallenged. This should also apply to outrageous exaggerations (as when McCain claimed that Alaska being close to Russia gave Palin foreign policy experience, and Charlie Gibson didn’t even bat an eye), and, hopefully, any claims that have strong evidence to the contrary. No more accepting claims simply because they’re claims. No more giving interviews without thorough understanding of the facts.

The excuse that if reporters did this, they would be denied access, is summarily dismissed, because if all reporters did this, politicians could not deny them all access. If controlling journalists is such a problem, then the profession needs to be reorganized, with a guild or other controlling agency that would award credentials (like the bar association does for lawyers) that requires adherence to these rules else face losing accreditation as a journalist. Politicians who then favored non-accredited reporters would soon be mocked.

Until this happens, there are few if any people out there that truly deserve the title “journalist.” If they don’t measure up, they’re nothing more than weak-kneed hacks who aren’t worth the price of their tailored suits.