Journalists: The Invisible Profession

Casual: There are certainly definitions, organizations, ethics, and standards for journalists.

Organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists offer insightful guidance: SPJ Code of Ethics

But, to have an external organization define what makes a journalist would be problematic at best—for instance, the Mississippi Press Association will only accept publications as full voting members if those papers derive the bulk of their readership from paid subscriptions and that are “formed of printed sheets.”

It’s time to get past that definition, but it’s still there.

So, if there was a “licensing” board in MS, you could almost guarantee it would be behind the times and missing some opportunities as tech disrupts journalism and moves quickly into new spaces.

(Witness how late in the game MS is for getting acupuncture licensed.)

Plus, there’s another reason you can’t “license” journalists just like we don’t license churches—the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since licensing the press (or a church) could be considered abridging that freedom, I think you’d have a fight on your hands. ;-)

No time to say much—it’s an “invisible” press day here ;-)—but one thing strikes as funny about Casual Observer’s comments: They are posted anonymously. Journalists use our real names for better or worse—and that’s your first check on what we do. You know who we are.

Journalistic standards are very important—and it’s one reason that anonymous posting and blogging is so dangerous. There is no way to hold faux-journalists accountable when you don’t even know who they are.

You can’t “regulate” journalistic standards (beyond the basics like libel) because that defeats the purpose; who would regulate? Our main purpose as journalists is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable—and the comfortable are often elected officials and bureaucrats.

More later, though. Must go do some invisible journalism. ;-)

Todd and Ladd,

Your first amendment arguments against creating a cadre of licensed, peer reviewed and ethically bound individuals known as Professional Journalists (P.J.‘s) ring hollow in my ears.

The licensing requirements would create a separate class of professionals, who hopefully will be held in higher public regard than the current conglomeration of off the cuff bloggers and talking heads.  It would force people like Rush Limbaugh and the Fox/CNN/MSNBC, etc news groups of crying, whining talking heads to be known as less than the best, by virtue of their inability to submit to and abide by a process of education, training, peer review, code of ethics and disciplinary risk.

According to the first amendment you can’t keep an indivdual (or corporation..how did that happen?) from saying what they want, but you don’t have to create a playing field so skewed that the rantings of a maniac has the same credibility and impact as those of the proposed licensed, peer reviewed professionals.

You cite that there are many organizations that offer journalistic guidance.  In my opinion, what we need is a system of organizations (like state bar associations, professional engineering boards, medical licensing panels, etc.) offering standardized training and education requirements, qualified peer review, ethical requirements and disciplinary powers.

You say churches cannot be licensed due to 1st amendment rights, which is true, but the public is able to discern between fly by night store front, or media front churches and say the Lutherans who have hundreds of years of history and good works behind them.  You can fool some of the people all of the time, and that’s just the way it is, but why create a system (by default) that makes it easier to do so.

In the old days, before news reporting switched from being a public service to an entertainment based profit center for the corporate media, people assumed that if it was on TV and Cronkite, Brinkley, Morrrow said it, it was true.

In addition, broadcast (TV, cable, satellite, etc.) entities, which use the public airways are already licensed..apparently no first amendment problem there.

Of course Mississippi would be one of he very last to create such licensing requirements…but this is Mississippi and that should be expected.

So in summary, for the third time..let’s create a new class of licensed professional journalists who can compete in the forum of public opinion along with the nuts and annon posters.

I would think that the small, locally owned, independent media, like the JFP, would rather work towards creating a class of licensed Professional Journalists, rather than rant and rave about the corporate robber barons who have invaded their communities.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness?

As a person who works in the professional engineering field, I find that it is a very sobering process when you are asked to cite the nationally recognized licensing credentials of your design team when competing for contracts. 

How many licensed journalism professionals on your team at the JFP? 

Now wouldn’t it feel good to say, “All of our writers and staff are licensed are on the path to licensure”.

Ladd, you reecently expressed distress at the inadequecy of the training given to journalism and mass communication students at our local colleges. Why not utilize the JFP’s existing contacts with the journalism programs in local high schools and colleges to begin the debate, process, etc.of settting LOCAL journalistic standards for professional journalism.  Standards that lead to the granting of a professional license

I go to Houston every week for medical treatments and I am amazed at how a relatively small investment, by an enlightened philanthropist fifty years ago has resulted in the economic engine of the Texas Medical Complex, which includes the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

A simple concept has grown into the largest complex of independent medical institutions in the world.

Just image it, Jackson becoming the journalistic capital and model of the world…because we were willing to start small to address a major problem in our society.

It’s not *our* First Amendment argument, Frank. ;-)

The idea that a state bar association would “peer-review” our journalism is interesting, I’ll give you that.

The funny part is that many of these mechanisms are in place—as far as figuring out what media outlet is telling the truth and which aren’t—and people who want to believe FOX News’ fearmongering, for instance, are going to believe FOX News fearmongering. That doesn’t mean you don’t strive for truth and excellence, but the idea of “peer review” wouldn’t work even if it didn’t raise other problems. At least not the way you envision.

But you’re welcome to start anything you want. And we might even do a story about you. Peer-reviewed, of course. ;-)

I would think that the small, locally owned, independent media, like the JFP, would rather work towards creating a class of licensed Professional Journalists, rather than rant and rave about the corporate robber barons who have invaded their communities.

Come on, Frank. You might not notice personally, but we do a whole lot more than rant and rave. And, no, licensing journalists would not work. I appreciate the spirit you’re offering the idea in, though.

And I’ll bet you money the Texas Medical Center, for all of its advantages to you and others, is not the most transparent place on the planet, and that people with the most power control information in and out of it. Just a guess.

Why not utilize the JFP’s existing contacts with the journalism programs in local high schools and colleges to begin the debate, process, etc.of settting LOCAL journalistic standards for professional journalism.

BTW, setting standards is much different from “licensing.” We’ve already got some things in the works on that front. Of course, the standards would be voluntary as it must be, but it would be nice to educate the populace especially about the dangers to them of newspapers that, for instance, sell stories to advertisers. It’s really about educating the public about what they should expect from media, especially in a time when media outlets are whoring themselves, pardon the expression, to try to “keep up” with anonymous bloggers who don’t have any clue about journalistic standards or, usually, libel law.

Voluntary standards, good and constitutional. Licensing, bad in a free nation.

Happy Thanksgiving!

(BTW, I really appreciate that you’ve started using your real name. I knew it, of course, but it’s great to model transparency on Web sites. The whole anonymous commenting thing is really hurting sites that don’t control it better. Sadly, many of the corporate sites are more interested in page views than good dialogue. Oops, there I got ranting and raving about the corporates again. Must watch that. <grin>)

I think Frank has some points; however, I am happy that their aren’t more constraints on journalists. I don’t think that licensing would improve the profession any….I fear that it may make it worse. The media with all its faults (which are many) has been a powerful tool in safeguarding and protecting society’s rights and exposing corruption and evil. If you put higher standards on who has the ability to produce information via the media, then you are cutting off avenues of speech; while turning a fundamental constitutional right into a privilege for a select elite.

Ladd,

I am surprised at you.

Let’s see.  Why don’t we create a newspaper that we give away for free and at the same time strive to become the locally recognized pinnacle of journalistic excellence.

HHhhhh…Nah…..it won’t work!

In my opinion, the goal of the VOLUNTARY (granted..lets make it voluntary to eleviate the 1st Amendment knee jerk) CERTIFICATION (granted…lets eliminate the perception of governmental guidelines) of journalists is not to exclude people, but to provide a method of DIFFERENTIATING between a person who can write whatever he/she wants to write (truth be damned) and a person who has VOLUNTARIALLY agreed to submit him/herself to the discipline of standards, ethics, peer review and the risk of losing their designation due to violations of the terms of their VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION.

To use your First Amendment example…You want to be a priest..open a church.

You want to be an Episcopal priest, then be prepared to go through a VOLUNTARY “CERTIFICATION” process.

Congress doesn’t have to get involved.  No laws are required or possible..due to 1st Amendment protections.

Want to start a business..be my guest.

Want to be cited as a VOLUNTARY member of the Better Business Bureau, be prepared to submit yourself to a process of peer review and ethical standards

I know that the concept of elevating the stature of journalists through by creating a VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION process is daunting, but Ladd, I’m not asking you to personally take the reins to make it happen on a national scale. 

I just see an opportunity for you, JFP and the independent community press for greatness, as you continue to work to make the JFP the best that it can be.

My Texas Medical Center example was not intended to solicit a response about transparency.  It was intended to show that greatness starts small, with a larger than life idea, but it originates with a person making a concious decision to get SOMETHING started.

And yes, I have noticed that JFP does more that R&R;, as I plainly cited the example where JFP has extended itself into the local high schools and colleges in my response..which you chose to ingnore in favor of chastizing me…..but hey, reading carefully is hard work and we are all distracted by the holiday reprieve.

All else being said Ladd, I have the utmost respect for the work that you and your staff do on a daily basis. I also see how your internal process of peer review results in higher quality journalism than we see in the Clarion Ledger. 

Keep up the good work.

Thank you for ALL that you guys do.

It would be entirely wrong to regulate the journalism profession, yet I wish there were some type of restraint on those organizations who pass themselves off as legitimate news reporting media.  Of course I mean the people at FOX (I just can’t bring myself to put the word “news” after their name.)

Tuesday night former Bush press secretary Dana Perino was being interviewed by Sean Hannity as to why the Obama administration is not calling the Ft. Hood killings a terrorist attack, and she said, “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.”  I couldn’t believe my ears!!!!  And Sean Hannity said—nothing.

Yes, those who want to believe FOX’s fearmongering will believe FOX’s fearmongering.  But there a significant segment of the voting population who will hear things like this and believe it simply because it was said and broadcast on what they believe to be the news.

I don’t know what they answer is, but the whole situation makes me cringe.

Chaffeur,

Good post. 

I agree that something must be done and the key may have to be differentiation rather than restraint.

In response to the tone and tenor of Ladds and Todds admonitions that government lincensure, regulation or monitoring of journalism is a non-starter I have amended my original musings to delete any reference or intention for GOVERNMENT regulation of the journalism profession, or journalistic media or conglomerates.

Ladd and Todd have convinced me that there appears to be an understanding in the journalism trade that trying to control, monitor, license or censure us journalists is not possible, desireable, legal or plausible.

That’s why I called journalist’s the “Invisible Profession”  And in my opinion the journalists will have to solve this one on their own. 

Again in my opinion,  all we can do as the interested and invested public is to make enough noise to force the industry to covert themselves from a conglomeratioon of indivduals with the mentality of medieval city states to a nation of professionals.  The key word being individuals, not news organizations, or media outlets. The true and unleashed strength of any organization, trade or profession is the individuals who populate it.  You know the guy/gals who do the work. Of course we can’t discount the importance of a dedicated, enlightened and passionate cadre of leaders.

Heck, even the mythical knights and cowboys (apologies to George Bush) of yore had a code of conduct that if you violated you were effectively strung out to dry on your own.

Oh, I really do need to proofread before I post things—please excuse the typos in my last post.  Since it’s Turkey Day, can we just blame the tryptophan?

Chaffeur,

Typo’s?...I didn’t notice.  I’ll re-read and mark up your post as requested…..after New Years of course!

I call my blog grammo’s hippo’s.

Frank, people are surprised at me every day. It’s a source of pride for me. ;-)

Seriously, you’re striking me as trying to pick a fight here that no one else is trying, or willing, to fight. Please don’t read something into my post that isn’t there or put words in my mouth. There is no negative tone there; Todd and I are both have been very straightforward, and emotionless, about your idea of licensure, which originally implied something different than what you’re arguing for now that you’ve incorporated our concerns into your suggestions. I’m all for voluntary standards in our industry, and that’s what journalism associations and boards are all about, or supposed to be. (AAN, which I’m on the national board of, for instance, has high journalistic and ethical standards for admission, and we’re the first in the state to get in.)

You’re now talking about something different than you originally proposed, apparently because we explained the First Amendment/government involvement hurdle. Sounds like we’re all moving the conversation forward, and I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t have time to argue about this. Too much journalism to get done. ;-)

BTW, there have been some seminal efforts in our industry to establish standards, and many of those standards are reflected in the codes of ethics of various news associations (such as SPJ) and media outlets. The problem is, the corporations that own so many media outlets are just ignoring the codes of ethics—such as any time they tell somebody they will do a story about them if and/or because they advertise. That is rampant in this town and state—we have the worst examples of media ethics I have seen in the country, presumably because the media corporations think Mississippians are too stupid to know better. Restaurants around the city have articles they bought in The Clarion-Ledger hanging on their walls, presumably mounted by the Ledger themselves to mislead their customers into thinking those are real, unbiased, unbought articles.

Another paper actually sells editorial and photos on its front page openly and puts in its paper that advertisers in certain sections get editorial with it, while not differentiating those editorial sections as advertising. No real journalism outlet would do these things, and it explains why the same publications are doing such miserable journalism. They don’t care if they mislead their readers, so why do the heavy lifting of real reporting?

Your comment about us giving our paper away for free, by the way, is a non sequitur. The price that the reader/view pays for a newspaper, magazine, Web article, TV report or radio show has nothing to do with that publication’s ethics or business viability or journalistic prowess. In fact, note that it’s the outlets that are trying to charge readers/viewers for trash that are failing, as we are steadily growing in readership and advertising.

So thanks for caring about all this. I don’t have a lot of time for the next couple months to get deep into a discussion about it—this is our busiest season—but I’m glad to see people talking about this stuff. The discussion, and the knowledge the general public gleans about media and our role in society, will raise the level of media literacy in the state.

Finally, Frank, please note that I am not “chastising” you. I am merely disagreeing with your idea of licensing journalists, nothing more.

Powerman,

You, todd and ladd have convinced me that government regulation or licensure is a non starter.  Look at my most recent posts above and note that I am now proposing VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION of journalists.

The goal is not to prevent anyone from excercizing their first amendment rights, nor to create a system of exclusionary regulation, but rather to create a mechanism to DIFFERENTIATE a journalist who has voluntarially agreed to abide by standards, ethics, peer review and disciplanry scrutiny from….everybody else. 

Kinda like the label, name plate(certification)manufacturers put on their vehicles enabling you to tell the difference between say, a Lexus and a Pinto. The certifications will issued be to individuals and not organizations. 

The certification won’t guarantee quality (Lexus does produce a lemmon now and then), but it will enable the casual observer to a expect a certain level of expectatio quality they SHOULD be receiving.

Could you see the value of a system of differentiation?