Hey, where’s your journalism licence?
Via David “DigiDave” Cohn (who got it from Dan Gillmor), I came across a mind-boggling piece of commentary from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in which former NBC correspondent and journalism instructor David Hazinski argues that “citizen journalism” needs to somehow be regulated by traditional media. As far as Hazinski is concerned, only “real” journalists can make sure that the citizen kind don’t go around making things up and not playing by the rules. As he puts it:
“While it has its place, the reality is it really isn’t journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.”
Did you get that last part? The news industry should find some way to “monitor and regulate” this new trend. With what, Dave? A central tribunal of some kind that can pass judgment on who has committed acts of journalism and who hasn’t? Seriously, you can’t make this kind of stuff up. As Dan points out, the news “industry” can barely seem to regulate or monitor itself, let alone everyone else.
Hazinski trots out the old “a guy with a scalpel isn’t a ‘citizen surgeon’” argument, which completely misses the point. Journalism is not surgery, for one thing — or presumably it would be regulated like medicine is, with licensing and testing requirements, and a professional body with the ability to remove a licence. If you go to Afghanistan and start writing about what’s happening, and your work is published somewhere, and you try your best to be fair and accurate, what are you? To Hazinski, you’re nobody.
For more detailed dismantling of Dave’s attempt at an argument, see Dan Gillmor’s post, and Mike Masnick has some thoughts at Techdirt too.
Related posts:
(On Dec 15th, 2007 at 11:33 pm)
Please, no. Dear god, please, no.
(On Dec 15th, 2007 at 4:38 am)
Bleh. Another case of, paraphrased: GET HIM! GET HIM! He didn’t bow down to us and pointed out the idol of has feet of clay so *GET* *HIM*!!!
This sort of knee-jerk ranting is the best proof of the points those people make.
(On Dec 15th, 2007 at 2:27 pm)
This is emblematic of the biggest challenge facing publishers. They do not know how to deal with the loss of control.
Yes, we need to be able discern fact from fiction or more importantly fact from opinion.
Yes, we need to have filters to promote quality and well researched news and opinion over the speculative and inaccurate news.
However, the solution to these challenges does not require such draconian control. There is plenty of historical and current day evidence where mandating “editorial control” has been used to control the dissemination of information rather than maintain some level of perceived quality.
For “professional newsman” to advocate such a position is frightening, and actually makes me wonder where he got his Journalism License?
(On Dec 15th, 2007 at 7:09 pm)
If gun owners need to be licensed, then why not journalists? When our “betters” controlled the media, they control access, and effectively licensed journalists.
It’s about control of those who disagree with you. Ditto for Gun licensing.
When a group starts to lose control they panic and go to great links to “keep the genie in the bottle”. It never works, and only creates a backlash.
Ironically what used to be termed the “alternative” media really wasn’t. We now have an alternative media, and the elites are unhappy about it. Good.
(On Dec 15th, 2007 at 6:46 am)
Matthew, looking back at the CES/Gizmodo imbroglio–not to suggest that this is a reasonable, or even sane, response–don’t you think that folks who demand to be treated like journalists (to the point of getting themselves issued press credentials) but then refuse to adhere to even minimal standards of professional conduct feed into this sort of silliness…?
People’s first reaction to a bad situation is almost always way over the top. Sometimes it gets expensive or otherwise problematic: the Sarbanes-Oxley laws are a good example of this…