This reminds me of a paper, which I can't find but can summarize (a less-in-depth version of the argument is advanced in quotes by a journalism professor here [

This reminds me of a paper, which I can't find but can summarize (a less-in-depth version of the argument is advanced in quotes by a journalism professor here [0]). The argument, as I remember it, asserted that journalism is a semi-profession because journalists are expected to adhere to ethical principles widely practiced by reporters (e.g. fairness, accuracy, ethics). However, it's not a profession on the same level as physicians or lawyers because they don't require licenses or credentials (whether this is a good or bad aspect is up for debate, but it's a description of the way the field currently works). Since the code of ethics aren't widely agreed upon (different unions of journalists and different newspaper publications have slightly different codes of ethics), there is a loss of professionalism in an academic sense (versus lawyers and physicians where the ethical codes are more standardized and may have legal or at least stronger moral binding). However, this does elevate journalism above a non-profession, as there are still ethical principles widely agreed with among credible journalists (e.g. if a source tells you information off-the-record, you protect their identity, even if threatened with imprisonment or personal harm). [0] https://j-source.ca/can-journalism-be-a-profession/ https://j-source.ca/can-journalism-be-a-profession/