Lets Try this Again...

Maybe License is the Wrong Word...

There seems to be some confusion over my use of the word "license", so let me try this again. How about a "Seal of Approval" by a reputable Journalist Society offered to journalists? Just as the fortune tellers...I mean...weather people are now monitored as Meteorologists how about the same structure for their partners at the anchor table? Each station wants to trump its competition by featuring as many Meteorologists as possible. How long ago would the Godfather of weather people, Dick Goddard, have been replaced by a cute young woman reading the forecast if there was not this competition for accurate forecasts by meteorologists. There is some regulation and oversight of these weather people and I assume that their seals can be withdrawn if they start predicting snow in July.

I am not suggesting that you have to go to Journalism school to get a "seal of approval. " I am also not saying that you have to get a "Seal of Approval" before you write anything. I am just saying that if you want to be identified as a journalist then you have to agree to certain standards of fairness, balance, and quality reporting on the facts. Many professions must get a seal of approval or license to operate, and we cheapen the practice of journalism by not setting some standards. Does a beautician or a contractor or a psychiatrist have more impact on our life than a journalist?

We regulate professions for health concerns, the spread of infectious disease, and public safety. Why can't we view tabloid yellow journalism as the spread of distortions that undermine our democracy? If reputable journalists do not get together to shut down the tabloids, they will continue to lose credibility in our society. The first amendment will be meaningless, if there is nothing left to defend. Who is going to rise up to save Channel 19 or Fox News or the ability to see death, blood and sex on the evening news?

Brian

The Fifth Estate

Last week, Brian wrote a post expressing his frustration with journalists and called for an internal association to "license" journalists. That post, which is further down on our page here, or can be read at http://homelessgrapevine.blogspot.com/2007/03/licensing-of-journalists.html incited a lot of comments (well, 8 comments is a lot for this blog) from the likes of Roldo Bartimole, John Ettorre, and others.

I thought I would throw my two cents into the mix here. Here goes...

I think the need for a journalism degree has hampered the profession in many respects. My experience with journalism classes is that you spend a lot of time doing facile AP Style book exercises and very little actual journalism.

From my understanding, copy boys used to be able to work their way up the system to become reporters, thus Jimmy Olsen (the actual Jimmy Olsen of "Superman" fame, not that Tabloid News hack Ed Gallek) was a cub reporter. Individuals who were experts in their field could also become newspaper writers later in their career.

I think this apprenticeship model and the ability to move upward in a company on merit were better than the current environment. As another newspaper man, Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) once remarked, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." I think the current environment puts too much emphasis on schooling, and not enough on actual reporting ability.

Furthermore, as journalism has become increasingly professionalized, so have all the other jobs in the field. It's almost impossible to imagine a copy boy or girl working his way up to become Editor in Chief of The Plain Dealer without first being extruded through college, a bunch of lower-circulation papers in far-flung towns, a flogging by Feagler, etc.

There's also the instinct to protect one's own, as Mr. Ettorre mentioned, which has undermined reporting. In the old days, there was a friendly competition amongst reporters for the same paper, but there was also competition for the same stories even in small towns from other papers. Now, the competition is between corporate entities to see which can have the most profitable news department by spending as few resources as possible.

All in all, I would say that the blogosphere has been a boon to reporting, if also a huge pain in the ass to the reporters themselves. Sure, the public still gets non-stories and Tabloid News, and Ann Coulter, but many blogs have also appointed themselves as media watchdogs and "citizen journalists." It's a lot harder for news monopolies to control and spin the news when a million angry bloggers (right or left wing) are watching your every move.

My father and his best friend became friends on a precursor to the Internet: billboards and newsgroups. Even then, members of the group were going to great lengths to disprove each other's claims. One newsgroup member drove across several states to check out a book from a library to prove false another member's claim to have served in Vietnam.

I think, just as one essential function of the fourth estate is to keep government honest, an evolving function of the blogosphere is to keep the media honest. Certainly not every member of the blogosphere will perform this function, and some will do it better than others. But I see the benefits of what I call the fifth estate greatly outweighing its detriments in the marketplace of ideas. We would do better to empower the watchdogs than to attempt to enact another echelon of control within the journalistic community.

-Kevin, Managing Editor, The Homeless Grapevine

P.S. In response to Mr. Ettorre's concern that Brian is ignoring the Constitution, I would say emphatically that he is well-versed in its tenets. I believe you may be misinterpreting his statements. Don't forget this administration's tendency, and the tendency of all administrations (Republican or Democratic) to ignore the Constitution when it is "inconvenient."

Licensing of Journalists

Fourth Estate? Then Act Like It

I have no problem defending the Balco Reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle or the blogger who is sitting in jail for not handing over the tape of the anti-war protesters that damaged a California police car, but these reporters seem to be the exception rather than the rule. For every champion of journalism who write stories about Walter Reed or Extraordinary Rendition Flights, there are two reporters at Channel 19 who care very little about society. For every Seymore Hersh there are five Michelle Malkins or Ann Coulters. With citizen journalists spreading like wildfire in blogs, we seem to have one Froomkin created, there are five extremist blogs proclaiming the assaults on homeless people everyday.

Lawyers have a role to play in this discussion. While there are many scummy lawyers and a million more lawyer jokes then journalist jokes, they have a governing structure in place. The Bar Associations' license lawyers and enforce rules. So, in theory, a lawyer who is abusing his authority can be brought up on maleficence charges and have their ability to practice law stripped. This means that if a lawyer breaks the law they lose the ability to practice law. Why can't we do the same for journalism?

The Society of Professional Journalists must start licensing journalists or the government will start doing it for them. We need to start taking this practice seriously and separate the real journalists from the fakes. The decisions made by journalists have consequences for ruining people's lives or for causing grief, suicide or even murder. The genocide in Rhwanda were carried out using the radio commentators to urge citizens to kill Tutsis. If journalists want to be taken seriously they must figure out how to separate the real from the O'Reilly types. They must set up a structure to license journalists with an enforcement mechanism to strip bad journalists from practicing their craft. Then the disgraced could go about their business as outsiders commenting on the news but not pretending to be journalists.

Brian