June 3, 2010--News Item from Fox News on May 28, 2010 by reporter Jana Winter: A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they're credible and have "good moral character."
STATE
CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION
OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
5 Freedom of speech and of press.
Sec. 5.
Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
History:
Const. 1963, Art. I, 5, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
Former
Constitution:
See Const. 1908, Art. II, 4.
2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
What part of the above does alleged constitution lawyer, Sen. Bruce Patterson, not understand? There are legitimate libel and slander laws, as well as the court of public opinion, to check press abuses. The explosive growth of media outlets does not excuse the people from exercising their responsibility of discernment, or give the government permission to exercise it for them.
As someone who has
covered controversial topics, especially 9/11, I know that
"credibility" is often in the eye of the beholder. Someone
who finds Fox News to be credible might not think the same of OpEd
News, Online Journal or Indymedia and vice-versa. The beauty of the
free press is that diverse outlets exist and people make their own
choices among them.
One of the things that reporters would
have to show in order to be registered with the State of Michigan
under the Patterson bill would be a journalism degree or its
equivalent. What is the equivalent? A degree in English, creative
writing, quantum physics? A two-year degree, a four-year degree, a
certificate from a correspondence school?
I am a community
journalist with no journalism degree; my degrees are in economics and
law, so maybe I have the equivalent. But the way we write in those
fields could never be confused with journalism, so maybe not. I
disagree with the implication of this bill that a journalism degree
confers credibility. This makes the classist assumption that only
people with higher education have the ability to think and write
clearly, or report ethically. Some great reporting has been done by
students and by non-degreed individuals who took an interest in what
was going on in their community. And I still remember the 1976
Democratic National Convention, where "The Children's Express"
scooped all the mainstream media on Jimmy Carter's selection of
Walter Mondale as his running mate. Most reporting is NOT rocket
science.
Another requirement
for registration would be 3 years of experience. Why would having
three years of experience confer credibility that someone did not
have at 2 years and 11 months? You should be taught the ethics either
through some sort of schooling, on-the-job training or even
self-study, before you go out on your first story. Also, I know that,
to many people, the only experience that counts is paid experience.
So this bill is basically implying that only people who have the job
title of reporter in a corporate outlet count as
journalists. (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Patterson's
concern for ethical standards doesn't wash because such standards can
be just as flimsy on the government side, such as when the government
tries to force a journalist to reveal a confidential source, embeds
reporters with the military in a theater of war or tries to interfere
with the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship.
Some
people might view this bill as a simple and logical extension of
press credentialing. Perhaps it is, but we should be questioning the
legitimacy of press credentialing rather than seeking to further
extend the concept. Here in California, press credentials are
processed by the California Highway Patrol -- at least, they were
several years ago, when I needed them last. A government agency,
especially a law enforcement agency, determining who would and who
wouldn't be recognized as press, and keeping records of who is
credentialed, should be anathema to a society that constitutionally
guarantees free press. It should not be business as usual.
They
used to say that freedom of the press was for those who can afford
one. With the Internet and personal computers, a large portion of the
population can now afford it--a problem for those of us trying to
make a living in journalism and stuck competing with "free"
news. But the "Information Age" also means that now that so
many people are in the field, the politicians can't hide so easily,
can't have "gentlemen's agreements" with a limited press
corps to keep certain scandals under wraps. This scares the pols who
depend on journalistic cover during their misdeeds the way
cockroaches depend on darkness during a raid on your pantry.
I
can see the thinking--and I use that word loosely--behind this bill
as the beginning steps down the slippery slope to the day when the
government will require all computers to be registered and licensed
as in the days typewriters were registered and licensed in communist
Romania, to be confiscated if the writer offended the government.
This Michigan bill probably won't fly...yet, or survive a
court challenge if it did. But assuming that someday, such a law were
to pass somewhere in the states, it might have the opposite effect
than what the government intended: No one will believe the registered
journalists as anything other than the paid stenographers of the
corporatocracy.
1
1
1
