Posted on 03/13/2005 5:06:36 AM PST by billorites
Exactly who is a journalist these days? This is a question suddenly being asked by working journalists, news executives, commentators and columnists, journalism professors and now, in the wake of calls for national shield laws to protect reporters' conversations with confidential sources, even by the courts.
In the United States, journalism remains an occupation without licensing, without required formal training or certification, and without a commonly accepted code of conduct. The rise of blogging, an erosion of traditional boundaries between reporting and commentary, and the blurring of news and entertainment by some media outlets makes it easier to describe what a journalist does — reporting, writing, fact-checking, editing and presenting news — than to precisely define who is, and who isn't, a journalist.
The Internet has magnified the confusion. Bloggers prove that anyone can “publish” or “report,” and their brand of citizen journalism has recently roiled the mainstream news media. CNN's Eason Jordan resigned after a blogger revealed his “off-the-record” comments, later retracted, that the U.S. military was targeting journalists in Iraq. CBS News backpedaled after
bloggers challenged the veracity of documents used in a report on President Bush's National Guard service.
In both cases, bloggers employed the traditional tools of reportage — checking sources and documents, sifting through evidence, interviewing participants and experts, and exploring new angles to the story.
Some in mainstream newsrooms have responded by sneering about credentials and professionalism. Former CBS executive Jonathon Klein complained on Fox News that blogging lacked editorial checks and balances, describing the average blogger as “a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.” But Andrew Sullivan, a mainstream journalist who blogs, countered in Time magazine: “The dirty little secret of journalism is that it isn't really a profession, it's a craft. All you need is a telephone and a conscience and you're all set.”
In fact, a paycheck from the established news media — achieving “professional” status — doesn't guarantee sound journalism or ethical news judgment. While the Internet lacks editorial gatekeepers and unsubstantiated rumors can circulate, it should be remembered that Jayson Blair worked for the august New York Times and Stephen Glass for The New Republic while perpetrating wholesale journalistic fraud. And CNN's Jordan leaves behind a troubling legacy of coziness with authoritarian leaders while seeking access for his network's international news operations.
Clearly, journalistic definitions are shifting. Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed a national shield law to protect the confidential sources of anyone “who engages in the gathering of news or information” with the intent to disseminate it to the public, a broad definition including many bloggers, freelancers and other “new journalists.” The expansive Dodd approach properly captures this new reality.
Yet perhaps the wrong question is being asked. Why not focus instead on a writer's principles, practices and craft, not on the terms of his employment, his schooling, his reputation or his choice of medium? One acid test: Is the reporting objective?
While objectivity has its critics, both on the right and left, it remains the best model for a trustworthy journalist. Journalism professor Michael Bugeja's trenchant definition of objectivity — seeing the world as it is, not how you wish it were — should be the goal of journalists seeking the truth. That's why most reputable news organizations continue to endorse the fundamentals of objectivity (and its corollary principles: accuracy, balance and fairness).
There are thoughtful guidelines for this pursuit. Veteran newsmen Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel have outlined the elements for a journalism of “objective method”: never add anything that wasn't there; never deceive; be transparent about methods and motives; rely on original reporting; and finally, exercise humility. (News executives should pay heed: during their recent crises CBS and CNN would have benefited from greater transparency and humility).
Journalists who stick to these and similar “retro” tenets will best serve their readers and viewers in an age of partisanship and fragmented audiences. With heightened Internet transparency, those employing the tools of journalism in the service of ideology or a political cause will eventually be exposed and discredited.
Readers and viewers should ask simple questions. Is a story accurate? Is the proper context provided? Are the facts in the story pursued, without fear or favor, even when they lead to unpleasant conclusions? Is the reporter or commentator open about methods and motives? And, most important, is there an acknowledgement of what isn't known, of events or possibilities ruled out by conventional wisdom?
In the end, whether produced by a highly paid Big Media professional or an amateur posting on the Internet, journalism should be judged on its merits, by its integrity, accuracy and truthfulness, and nothing else.
Jefferson Flanders teaches journalism at New York University.
You don't need a license or permission or a degree to practice 'journalism'.
This is an attempt to undercut the judicary's right to compel testimony, i.e., to enforce the law.
This proposal very literally creates a class of citizens who are above the law, to whom the normal rules do not apply, and whose membership is not controlled by law or the will of the people.
Who needs more proof than this proposal, from a "democrat", that democrats are enemies of democracy?
Why don't we just throw out the First Amendment and bring Hitler and Stalin back to rule us. Maybe those whining journalists will be happy then. When the people speak elected government listens and that's the way it should be. They won't always like what we say though they need to know whatever it is.
The Constitution forbids congress from creating noble classes with special rights. That notion applies here, when one talks of a new law to exempt some people from having to testify in a court of law.
The proposal would create a brand new government-protected "right" for mainstream journo-prostitutes: the right to libel.
People have always had/made opportunities to make political statements (subject to the political atmosphere they lived in). Blogging is only the latest form of it. In the late 1700's the venues were local newspapers (anyone who could afford it to could start one up) and political pamphlets (anyone who could afford it to could write, print and distribute one). Those who couldn't afford printing their views could stand on street corners and give their speeches (subject to possible arrest, depending on the political atmosphere; remember, too, Hillary wants a gatekeeper for the Internet. So are these times that much different?).
To imply that blogging as a form of individual/personal speech is something new to 'journalism' is correct only in form. Blogging just gives a different, more accessible, more available, more broad ranging, and faster means of distributing one's personal and political statements. In substance, 'bloggers' have existed in other ways throughout history, as pamphleteers, as speechmakers, as news-sheet printers, etc.
-Pajamahadeen Rule... rise of the New Media--
...and speaking as one who has done some writing for hire in the past, I have always maintained that journalism is not rocket science-- I believe any reasonably literate and intelligent adult can learn how to write a comprehensible article based on the classic "five W's" of reporting.
Therefore, the field does not need more policing- what it needs is a wider variety of new writers and critics to self-correct.
Jefferson Flanders teaches journalism at New York University. He is also somewhat of a dope. Eason Jordan made the same type of comments to reporters before Davos.
Journalism is a 'craft' with no testing, no passing of any test, no acredidation, no required background. Anyone who can say the work is perfectly free to call himself a journalist although it helps to have a pencil, pen, PC, or air space.
Otherwise, everyman is one.
Before journalist there were only reporters. The difference is that the reporter reported the news whilst the journalist starred in the news.
...and exposing the absurdity of the so-called "journalists" (to their horror).
"...journalism...isn't really a profession... All you need is a telephone and a conscience and you're all set.”
Uh...all you need is a telephone. Come to think of it, you don't even need that.
This is the protection of the "unnamed source" to spread lies and innuendo about any person or issue. Star chamber journalism.
The first amendment is license enough for anybody to speak their mind. Only in the eyes of the NYT and their liberal sympathizers would journalism be seen as a "licenseable" profession.
"That's why most reputable news organizations continue to endorse the fundamentals of objectivity (and its corollary principles: accuracy, balance and fairness). "
Balance is not a corollary of objectivity, nor is fairness )a terrorist IS a terrorist and not an insurgent).
"Readers and viewers should ask simple questions. Is a story accurate? Is the proper context provided? Are the facts in the story pursued, without fear or favor, even when they lead to unpleasant conclusions? Is the reporter or commentator open about methods and motives? And, most important, is there an acknowledgement of what isn't known, of events or possibilities ruled out by conventional wisdom?"
whatta joke.
something musta gone wrong for these "professionals" during the clingon administration.
Well, that "conscience" part eliminates most of the MSM "journalists."
Journalists are smart enough to be dangerous. They know a little about subjects, but not enough. That is why they are so damned awful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.