Jonathan Glater at the NYT (or what we call around my newsroom “the Mothership”) lays out the issues surrounding the Apple preliminary ruling. Deep down, he touches on the trouble with a “functional” definition of journalist. If you have to define it, who decides the criteria? Who administers and enforces those criteria?

I recall discussions of professional licensing in college, and remember thinking how obtuse that notion sounded. Then, on the cusp of today’s spiraling, chaotic global media, it seemed quaint to argue that we should all tote little cards stamped JOURNALIST.

Global media now includes reactionary commentary framed as reporting, federal and state governments using faux newscast segments to pass policy messages through local TV, and right- and left-wing bloggers. Each of these contends with financial pressures as advertising pies get sliced atom-thin. So where does that leave journalism?

Not in a positive place. Still, the prognosis isn’t all bad.

We don’t need further defining of “journalist,” only a frank discussion about what journalism is. Those who get information to make decisions from poorly sourced, surface feeders, only get part of the story. Citizens who seek out information that is researched, sourced, reviewed and fairly expressed know the quality of that information, regardless of the writer’s political bent.

How can journalism effectively disassociate itself from below-the-belt partisanship? How can good, honest journalists let readers or viewers know that, hey, we don’t even know who invited these jerks to the party?

I’m open to suggestions. I know the dedication to fairness and accuracy I strive for, and recognize the absence of that dedication in more bloggers than not. But it’s not just bloggers; I see plenty of bad journalism, regardless of medium.