Too Funny
From a report by Tim Porter about a recent ANSE panel:
Huffington is talking about Huffington Post’s plan to work with Jay Rosen’s new project. NewAssignment.net, in covering the 2006 presidential campaign. We’ll have citizen journalists in every state, she says. What’s a citizen journalists, asks Diller. Mossberg, not missing a beat, jumps in: “It’s like citizen surgery.” Rim shot. Big laugh from the newspaper editors.
I have heard of journalists making this same statement, but I have never heard it with my own ears. And if I ever do I will laugh heartily.
One could attack such a silly statement from so many angles. But the most obvious angle is also the most amusing one. That is: Journalists generally (and rightly) bristle at the idea that they should ever participate in the same kind of state-sanctioned education or be subject to the same kind of state-sponsored licensing as physicians. Freedom of the ”press” (i.e. a metonymy for all sorts of information gathering and disseminating) is the right to distribute information to the public. It is a First Amendment right. Cutting into people with sharp little knives is not. You don’t have to prove to anyone you can practice journalism (except maybe your crusty local editor if you want to get paid for it). You most certainly do have to prove to the state that you can cut into people without killing them (most of the time).
There are two primary differences between citizen journalists and professionals (i.e. those who get a paycheck): 1) The paycheck; and 2) Professional journalists enjoy, but don’t discuss, the de facto licensing that most certainly exists, e.g. in the form of employer-issued press credentials that pros are only too happy for authorities of all kinds to recognize.
There are a few other differences that involve skills in news gathering and writing. A good dose of journalism ethics sure wouldn’t hurt either. To get you up to speed on ethical practice, I recommend The Elements of Journalism and Good News, Bad News. None of these skills are particularly difficult to acquire. They are, however, often quite difficult to practice well. Journalists ought to applaud citizens who want to take on this job as amateurs. Journalists ought to want to help.
“Profession” has been dumbed down as a word so as not to be meaningful anymore. But your second point about “de facto licensing” is an important one.
I’m not surprised that the “ink-stained wretches” of the institutional press would compare themselves to clergy and surgeons. It’s journalism’s religious hypocrisy that continues to hurt their own credibility.
re: Journalists ought to applaud citizens who want to take on this job as amateurs.
Well, hypocrisy and that arrogance.
I’m not sure the definition has been dumbed down–perhaps merely confused. One legitimate definition of the word involves the doing of something for pay. I think a problem arises, however, in journalists wanting it both ways.
Re: arrogance
I certainly don’t mean that statement to be arrogance of the kind that you know I’m against. But I do see how it can be interpreted that way. Perhaps poor wording on my part.
Journalistic Ethics? I thought that’s what the Standards and Practices buzzkills got paid for? heh.
Journalism is particularly interesting in that journalists tend to assert its proper practice as ethical, i.e. to gather and disseminate news in a certain way is a moral/rhetorical endeavor that gives citizens a certain kind of information.
Quite obviously, journalists sometimes fail to live up to the standards they set for themselves.
Does journalism need new standards? None at all. Something else? Seems to me these questions are part of the on-going conversation about a very real topic we call “journalism ethics.”
re: definition
Merriam-Webster
re: re: arrogance
Whether journalism is a “holy profession”, comparable to surgery (or not), journalists should encourage journalism by anyone interested, as a hobby or for pay. Journalists are citizens, not applauding citizens. Better wording would be appreciated.
FYI: Knight Citizen News Network
re: ethics
From Newspaper Reporter and Editor Attitudes Toward Credibility, Errors and Ethics (also comment at PressThink):
Are there standards in journalism any more?
re: standards
Yes. Journalism has sets of standards for such things as ethics and proper editorial practices. These standards are taught in j-schools and genreally recognized by pros. Perhaps more interesting questions are: How carefully do journalists follow standards? When they don’t following them, what are the reasons/rationalizations? What are the consequences? Are new/different standards necessary for better journalism?
re: interesting questions
My take from reading the Mongerson report is that journalists say their newsrooms have the right standards but not enough time is spent investigating and enforcing those standards in their own newsrooms or others.
Tim… Yes. Not a surprising result.