I do think more can and should be taught to nurture an entrepreneurial spirit among journalists. But I think the analogy goes off the rails in a few places.

For one thing, Mike, lawyers are not doing just fine.

It may not necessarily undermine your overarching thesis, but…

check this: http://lawshucks.com/2009/10/this-week-in-layoffs-10909/

Big Law is laying off scores of associates. Big Law is canceling summer internship programs for law students. Big Law is cutting salaries of entering associates.

I do think you’re on to something — it’s why I’ve chosen to have the freedom of being a freelance writer and editor for the last 14 years.

I do agree with you that more can and should be done to cultivate an entrepreneurial spirit among journalists. But I’m not sure that will make journalists who do the most important work of shining a light on the dark places of our society — journalists who are way too few in number — any more financially comfortable.

And that’s the real problem I have with your analogy: Who pays for lawyers, directly? They are hired guns, and they earn the fabulous wealth of which you speak because powerful interests pay them to advance those interests. Who pays to represent the poor? A combination of charity and the state.

We already have a vast cadre of professional communicators who entrepreneurially go out and make vast sums by representing the interests of parties wealthy enough to pay them.

They’re called Public Relations operatives.

Of course journalists will benefit from developing entrepreneurial skills. But the model would be the market trader not the partner in a law firm.