It started with the drama on Wall Street. Months later it progressed to the Motor City. The banking industry had a hard time keeping money straight. (Tell me how that works again.) And the auto industry struggled to make efficient cars for a reasonable cost.

Problems arose and the government’s solution to the equation was to throw money at the problem. What’s a few billion dollars here or there? It’s not like we’re in a recession or anything.

However, the impact of these industries on the global economy is prevalent and printing extra money at a time where the U.S. dollar is decreasing in value seemed like a good solution.

That brings us to April 2009, nearly 10 years after the dot com boom. The growth of the Internet and technology has suddenly snuck up on the media industry and guess what — they don’t know what to do about it. Welcome to what some coin the “death of print.”

Newspapers are focusing much of their efforts toward developing an online staff that can update content to the minute, upload slideshows and video content of the latest breaking news, along with blogs and podcasts. The problem — no one is making money from online advertising revenue.

The transistional phase of journalism (as I call it) has created a stir among industry elite. How will we solve this problem? Advertising revenues are down, newspapers are cutting back on how often they home deliver or essentially cease to exist. These factors have some in the industry suggesting that journalism should be the next industry to get a federal bailout.

Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks thinks it’s time. “If we’re willing to use taxpayer money to build roads, pay teachers and maintain a military; if we’re willing to bail out banks and insurance companies and failing automakers, we should be willing to part with some public funds to keep journalism alive too,” she wrote in her final column for LAT.

Others have offered up ways for this bailout to work: “In an article in the April 6 Nation, John Nichols and Robert McChesney offer some ideas on how to bail out the news industry. They suggest, for instance, eliminating postal rates for periodicals that get less than 20 percent of their revenues from advertising, a tax credit for the first $200 taxpayers spend on newspaper subscriptions and a substantial expansion of funding for public broadcasting.” 

Right, so let’s as journalists, watch dogs of the government, ask for a federal bailout. Doesn’t that blur the lines a bit? The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists should act independently.

The SPJ Code of Ethics states journalists should: Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

It’s a journalist’s job to cover the government as part of their regular beat. In the 70s, was it not two relentless journalists who busted open the Watergate scandal? What would the city of Detroit be like if the Detroit Free Press had not discovered the misconduct of a sex-texting mayor? Taking a government bailout would damage the credibility of the news media — not aid it.

As the shift from print to online continues and the worries about making money for online content persists, journalists must be responsible for solving the problem on their own. Journalists should utilize the skills they’ve obtained from reporting on hard-hitting news. We’re resourceful when we need to find the perfect source to get that front page news story, we should continue to use our resources and skills in order to solve our own problems.

A government bailout? Thanks, but no thanks.