Thursday, December 13, 2007
Recursion
David Hazinski, a professor of journalism at the University of Georgia, has written a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that assumes that journalism is a profession -- a fact not in evidence if there ever was one -- and calls for regulation to prevent just anybody from claiming that he or she is a "journalist." There are no "citizen surgeons" or "citizen lawyers," says Professor Hazinski, so there ought not be any "citizen journalists."
There is no small irony here. Insofar as Hazinski's column is possibly the most asinine op-ed published by a newspaper in the history of the universe, it almost succeeds in its argument by dint of its own transporting amateurism. Almost.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
8 Comments:
By 
Seafarious, at
Thu Dec 13, 10:27:00 PM:
But unlike those other professions, journalism — at least in the United States — has never adopted uniform self-regulating standards. There are commonly accepted ethical principals — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principals is voluntary.
Principals. Feh.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Dec 13, 10:33:00 PM:
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Dec 13, 11:03:00 PM:
I'm all for licensing and heavy regulation of professional standards, the ability to bar them from practicing should they prove unreliable/incompetent, etc for so called "journalists"...presuming that's what is being implied by the comparison to lawyers and doctors.
Obviously, advanced degrees beyond liberal arts bachelors would be required as well since that's required for doctors and lawyers.
By 
, at
Fri Dec 14, 05:26:00 AM:
I think I'd better head down to Georgia to get my sorry ass certified.
Jim - PRS
http://parkwayreststop.com
By tm, at
Fri Dec 14, 07:20:00 AM:
Strip away the self-aggrandizement, and it's a pretty decent column: the media probably should develop standards and procedures for the integration of citizen media; and the quickening of the media cycle probably does lead to a dumber media culture.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Dec 14, 07:28:00 AM:
jpe, the media does have "standards," but they are distributed. They are the standards of every editor and producer. They are checked by their competitors, both traditional and non-traditional. As any blogger knows, his readership depends ultimately on his credibility with his readers. That is why bloggers have evolved their own "open source" code of ethics, which demands that bloggers do not (for instance) "disappear" their errors but own up to them, link to linkable sources, and so forth.
By , at
Fri Dec 14, 10:19:00 AM:
There must be a reason the licensing of professionals was not enshrined in the Constitution but freedom of speech and it's derivatives freedom of thought and expression were. The imperative for licensure, though some cynics may say with some truth that there is an element of creating a protected class, is still fundamentally the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
Journalists in my opinion, real journalists, are those who chronicle their experience and shed light on our own. We're supposed to be able to separate their point of view from claims of truth. We have evolved into a situation, though, where their point of view is not only passed of as truth, but is increasingly instituionally guarded as the truth, often despite evidence to the contrary.
Jounalists in my opinion do not have a responsiblity to protect the public welfare and so they should not be licensed. It is not necessary to prevent inaccurate communication. It is necessary to protect the right to challenge it publically.
The Internet is not a crowded theatre.
By , at
Fri Dec 14, 05:58:00 PM:
I've long believed that the professionals in journalism should, at least, raise their personal and business standards, ethics and practices at least to the level of prostitutes, journalism closest group on the job category continuum.
Journalists should agree to "put their price list on the bedstead," as hookers do, so that all might know what journalist charge for printing/advocating something or for concealing something.
