They were proven forgeries, not falsehoods.geoff said:This is incorrect. They have been proven false.
Nothing in their content has ever been seriously disputed, and much of their content positively supported by eyewitness accounts as well as circumstance.
Last I heard there was still a standing reward for eyewitness or circumstantial evidence contradicting the eyewitness and circumstantial accounts supported by those forgeries.
If there were a professional body, like the Bar Association, membership in it would suffice.pande said:How are we defining "journalist"?
Given the US Constitution, I see no way to set one up with real power, though.