A Michigan state senator this month introduced a bill to encourage voluntary licensing of journalists in the state. The license, or certification, would be given only to those who understand “generally accepted standards of journalistic ethics”, have a college degree in journalism or a related subject, experience, show “good moral character”, and pay $10.
Even though the proposal writer does not plan to push the issue into actual law, the fact that this was brought up should be concerning to every person nationwide who values freedom of speech, press, and information in general. The very idea that the government would play any open role in regulating the press in this country is repugnant.
We are a country founded on a free press, in whatever form it may come in, specifically so that the press can openly report on the government; if the government controls who is “certified” to report about its actions, it is no longer a free press. I also find it ironic that under such a law the government would control what is considered moral character and journalistic ethics when it is often our legislators who are found to be involved in scandals of immoral behavior.
While such a law, as this one is written, would not apply to photojournalists, it would apply to editorialists and commentators, including online bloggers. How many of you bloggers out there want your words discounted because you don’t meet your state’s requirements for a license? How small of a step would it be from voluntary journalist registration to mandatory registration? Once registration is mandated, how small a step would it be for the government to prohibit publicly stated reports or editorials by non-licensed journalists?
For democracy to continue to exist, the press must remain free from any governmental intrusion or regulation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree entirely with your assertion that this bill would seriously restrict free speech in the state of Michigan. Only a politician who wanted to stifle debate or criticism would propose such a thing. While I agree that the profession should have some basic standards (ethics, accuracy) in regards to how information is published, the suggestion that someone should be certified would preclude individuals from submitting opinion in the op-ed columns and potentially prevent academic scholars from publishing works of educational research. This is the epitome of restricting intellectual freedom and a bad idea all around.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a license would not be that the government controls who is a journalist, but that there is "guild of journalists" acknowledged by the state. I would guess that the reason that he is proposing this is to combat agnotology, which is a problem. I don't think his proposal is a good way to deal with agnotology. This raises the question, how do we as librarians combat agnotology, while also protecting intellectual freedom?
ReplyDeleteI would hope that we're at a point where something like this would just be laughed away. Personally, I check news "blogs" before I check more established media outlets in the morning. Some people tend to think of bloggers as caricatures that sit around in their parents' basement while wearing their dirty sweatpants and just making stuff up. Although, I think this perception is quickly changing.
ReplyDeleteIt saddens me that an elected official of the US Government would waste my tax dollars introducing legislation that undermines the US Constitution. Is he ignorant about the rights of the citizens he is suppose to represent, or does he have nothing better than introduce bills he doesn't intend to push into law. Stop wasting my tax money and stop stepping on my rights. Who does he think he is?
ReplyDeleteMy husband has a Google alert set on his name to stay up to date on his press releases for the purpose of making sure what he puts out to the media is accurate and to stay on top of how the message is coming across. So this article actually amuses me. While I realize the purpose of the free press is to provide check and balance, I suspect the goal of this (however misguided)is to provide some accountability for their actions. The news we read is what is communicated to us and we rely on it as a check and balance to our government-but who checks the press? They tell us what they want us to hear just as much as our government. What I love (sarcasm) is seeing misquoted text, and finding the correction in tiny print the next day at the back of the classifieds.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what qualifies as "good moral character?" I'm guessing my definition is not the same as his.
ReplyDelete