Is it time to license journalists? Michigan thinks so.

[KonaKane]

It looks like some are ready to act on the deterioration of the media, instead of constantly lament it....



Michigan Legislator Proposes Law To License Journalists


A Michigan legislator has introduced a bill that would authorize the state to issue licenses to journalists:

Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets–traditional, online and citizen generated–and an even greater amount misinformation.

“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.

He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.

“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”

Isn’t that what the market is for ? If a journalist proves himself to be unreliable, he’s going to get called out on it at some point by his competitors, just ask Jayson Blair. Patterson seems to believe, though, that the state must intervene to ensure journalistic “reliability” and trustworthiness because, as with so many other areas of life, the people cannot be trusted to make these decisions for themselves.

The bill provides:

According to the bill, reporters must provide the licensing board proof of:

–”Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

–Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.

–Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.

–Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.

–Three or more writing samples.

Reporters will also have to pay an application and registration fee.

The bill does not prevent reporters who are not licensed by the state from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary

...snip....

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/michigan_legislator_proposes_law_to_license_journalists

-----------------------------------


At first my hackles went up. I have this inate aversion to restricting speech and the practice of the so called free press. But then I thought, what good has the "free press" done for the pursuit of the disemination of knowledge, enlightening of views and playing a vanguard of the people speaking truth to power lately? Not much, in fact its been a race to the bottom for years. You have every chucklehead with a laptop and an agenda now claiming to be a reporter, and the old rules of journalism (who/what/where/when/why) and a sense of ethics seems to have gone right out the window.

Is it a good idea to crack down on this branch of the idiocracy? How comfortable are you with "character ratings" (that one gave me shivers) and subjective benchmarks possibly based on an institutional bias? Where will the FOX news team go when they are required to be licensed and therefore have to seek work at the local Burger King?

Has the time come for mandating credibility and excellence in journalism?

[Robb]

1. "Sorry, only government-approved journalists allowed."

Yeah, that would work great.

[Posteritatis]

83. It's scary how many fans the idea has

Even before taking into account their assumption that the Republicans magically wouldn't make use of that kind of power if it existed. Can you imagine trying to get a journalist's license in, say, Utah?

[KonaKane]

86. It would be an improvement over what passess for journalism in Utah today

and for the last couple of decades. Take it from somebody who grew up there.

[TampaAnimus2010]

116. Ya, theres no way the government could use that to stifle dissent.

I can just imagine what the republicans would do with this when they are in power next.

[KonaKane]

121. If it were a federal law, yes. But this is a proposed state law.

Also, my question remains unanswered yet - what would you do to correct the awful deterioration of the press?

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RB TexLa]

2. The Cuban system of journalism?

[JackRiddler]

112. Ah, it's the Miami brigade (Tex-La division) using this as a chance for the usual attack

There are literally dozens of examples you could throw out, but of course many of those aren't the target of a 50-year US war, like Cuba.

If you want to see Cuban practices change, then surely you support the most rational measure of ending the US blockade, terminating the aggression (such as calls for repatriation of Batista-era property), and letting people travel freely to Cuba, so that the place loosens up a bit and people can see and judge for themselves.

[Posteritatis]

3. Your tune will change pretty damn quick with the next Republican Congress/presidency. (nt)

[KonaKane]

6. This is a state law, not a federal one.

Also, are you satisfied with what journalism has become? If not, how would you fix it?

[Posteritatis]

23. I wouldn't fix it by throwing state or federal constitutions out the window,

Funny how many people around here start taking pages from the other guys' playbooks once their party is the one on the up-and-up.

[KonaKane]

55. Does mandating gun licenses mean we've "tossed the constitution out the window"?

Funny, your line of argument is beginning to sound like the freepers case against gun regulation.

[Posteritatis]

66. And yours is sounding like their case against most other freedoms. Might wanna look into that. (nt)

[KonaKane]

69. Your line of argument is not consistent, then.

On one hand you (seemingly) support regulation and the licensing practice in regards to one of our rights (to bear arms)....yet you vociferously reject the same in regards to another right (speech, press).

You might want to explore that a bit.

[GreenStormCloud]

75. That case is before SCOTUS right now.

Decision is expected June 28th on McDonald V. Chicago.

[Dr Morbius]

118. Let me handle this one.

To restore freedom of the press: I ask you, one and all: can you be free if you are not independent? I submit the answer is obvious: if you have to answer to higher-ups, your freedom is necessarily limited. The problem with the media is the consolidation. The government needs to pass a law mandating and protecting independent media, and prohibiting deals between media providers (like satellite services or cable) and the so-called news media itself. For those on the right who howl about government "regulating" media, they brought it upon themselves when they decided to treat the news as commerce. Government not only has the express power but the duty to regulate commerce; it says so in the Constitution.

When every town has at least one independently owned radio station, and for those cities large enough 1/4 of the radio stations are independent, we will instead of hearing two sides of every issue will hear hundreds. These radio stations can certainly play Rush Limbaugh's feed if they want to, but if they don't want to carry that they don't have to. Because each station would have freedom to play or say what it wants.

The same for television stations, although I suspect the era of broadcast television is nearing its end. Sure, stations can choose to carry a network feed. But they can also choose not to carry it, and therein lies all the difference.

Diversity. Diversity is essential to democracy and to the role the media has to play in it. Government has to protect independent media and limit the scope to which powerful interests can control the nation's media outlets. Do this, and there will not be a need for any kind of fairness doctrine. Get the diversity; fairness will result organically.

Diversity, not "licensing", is the answer. Not by restricting but opening up access to the media, by protecting independent media.

[KonaKane]

120. Diversity is a great idea. But does it get you closer to the truth?

That's my question. Diversity doesn't always deliver. I am reminded of a line in an old Pink Floyd song, "23 channels of shit on the TV to choose from".

[Dr Morbius]

130. The point is that independence in the media is what brings us the diversity.

Independent media, small enough not to have to belong to a conglomerate with monetary interests in all things, are the only ones who will be able to follow the stories until the truth is exposed. It really is about restoring freedom to the press. Editorial policies have always been set by ownership; now, consolidation of ownership has yielded consolidation of editorial policy, with the result that there are some stories which never got airtime but really should have. You know what I mean. Disjoin ownership; mandate independence on some level in all media formats and every private interest which gets a small microphone will shout out something different.

Viola. Diverse opinions are out there. And I think it was thirteen channels. Mr. Springsteen complained of 57 channels, and nothing on. Pink had thirteen; I'm pretty sure about that.

[KonaKane]

131. I'm not seeing diversity as the problem. I'm seeing lack of excellence and ethics as the problem.

I agree with you about the free flow of information and the diversity of outlets. But what the law is attacking is something far worse and more potentially egregious - the lack of quality and ethics in today's journalism. We've gone from hard news outlets, newsroom studio guised infommercials pimping products and points of view. We are blurring the lines between news and entertainment, and I really do not think that was the driving philosophical force behind our constitution's guarantee of a free press.

[kestrel91316]

140. You fix the situation by putting restrictions on corporate ownership of the media

and requiring that broadcast media actually provide a politically neutral service to the human community and not to corporations.

[Cleita]

4. I've been saying this for years but the freedom of speech crowd always

attacks the idea. I'm sorry but allowing anyone to spout off anything hasn't worked so well has it? Maybe though it should be limited to editors and not journalists as such and it shouldn't be a license per se but standards any given media outlet must meet to be credentialed as a legitimate news outlet. Sure Rupport Murdoch style publications, radio and TV could still operate, they just wouldn't be credentialed as legitimate and licensed news outlets. Okay let the flames begin. I've got my asbestos suit on.

[KonaKane]

10. That's the feeling I'm getting. The entire "estate" has lost credibility.

I'm just not seeing a problem with demanding a level of excellence and credibility to very very important part of our process - a free press. We license people to protect the public. If the public has not been harmed by the advent of McNews, then I don't know what has.

[tranche]

13. "Real Journalists" are responsible for 99% of the crap that's out there.

The non-credentialed seem to be the only one's willing to do real news any more.

[Cleita]

16. That's because they don't have to meet any standards to operate. n/t

[tranche]

20. I think it's because they work in a corporate environment motivated by profit.

I'm getting better information from the blog at the oildrum then I am from Anderson Cooper and John King the rest of the "real news" organizations.

[madinmaryland]

39. And who gets to determine the "standards"??

Fox Noise??

[Cleita]

45. That would be like letting the insurance companies write health care reform.

Oh wait. That's what happened. How about Columbia University School of Journalism? Then we can go back to the drawing board and let doctors and patients write health care reform.

[KonaKane]

61. That's the part I don't like.

Thing is, I just don't know. I have no idea who I would trust to makes such determinations.

[Posteritatis]

82. And most state or federal legislatures would be at least as bad with it. (nt)

[crazyjoe]

26. "Freedom of speech crowd" ???? OMFG

[Cleita]

32. Have you watched Fox News lately?

They certainly want freedom to lie about everything and pull facts out of their collective asses. That freedom of speech crowd! OMFG!

[Bill McBlueState]

37. lol

the "freedom of speech crowd," as though freedom of speech is some kind of special interest.

[Cleita]

38. It's just a label to communicate whom I am speaking of.

lol

[JackRiddler]

113. Since Internet posts ARE publications, and since DU is a news site...

I think it's very important that we license YOU.

It's very nice to imagine an ideal world where serious, truthful, competent people are labeled as such, and idiots are labeled as idiots.

However, this proposal basically amounts to letting the idiots do the labeling.

[Brickbat]

5. Sweet bippy, what a nightmare.

A seal of approval from the state? No thanks.

[jaysunb]

7. Bruce Patterson

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/senators/Patterson.asp?District=7

:evilfrown:

[n.michigan]

41. another embarrassment for MI

[mwooldri]

8. Want to know who to trust in journalism?

Simple: If the reporter says they're from CBC, BBC, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), AFP... they're trustworthy for the most part.

If the reporter mentions anything containing FOX in their title then treat with suspicion.

[KonaKane]

14. I used to agree with that.

But lately even they have begun slipping into McNews, and its easy to see why. The buck raking machine called FOX has beguiled many news agencies who are anxious to jump into that sort of revenue making, which means aping FOX. CNN is doing it, and they used to mostly reputable.

I think more has to happen here than just hope ones old standards remain true. We need a national dialogue on this and a true change of mind and heart in the journalistic profession. Because frankly, right now it stinks to high heaven.

[mwooldri]

48. Maybe US networks... but not necessarily the foreign ones.

BBC is answerable to its licence fee payers - i.e. the public. They had to set the standards for news broadcasting and are also held to those standards by outside bodies. If it is wrong, they have to by law correct it.

e.g. the situation back in 2003 when on Radio 4 the main morning news show "Today" the claim was made that the government had "sexed up" information about Saddam Hussein's Iraq's military capabilities. BBC stood by the report, but the source for the reports apparently killed himself... there was a government inquiry, this apparently cleared the government entirely and put the BBC down to "sloppy journalism". As we know now, that information was indeed "sexed up" and the inquiry was a cover up. The BBC lost a good CEO and chairman in the process...

Improvements have been made, but no broadcaster is perfect. Use several sources - foreign and domestic.

[obxhead]

21. any of the major US MSM should be treated with suspicion

They are not 'news' channels any longer. To call them propaganda machines is far closer to the truth. While I see Faux noise as the worst offender I won't give any of the other US news channels a pass either.

[LiberalFighter]

28. Also need to break up the media conglomerates.

[JackRiddler]

115. Educate yourself broadly on the issues using actual books, then use your brain when reading news?

There is no way to make a list like yours. It's obvious FOX is the propaganda attack channel of an extreme right-wing owner. But that doesn't mean other outlets don't push all manner of propaganda. I trust authors whom I have seen doing a good job in the past, and certain programs that do the same. It's crazy to just "trust" BBC or AFP, but of course given the extremely degraded situation in the United States, you'll usually get much better coverage of everything from them.

[treestar]

9. It could not restrict non licensed journalists from publishing

but maybe it would give the licensed ones some prestige.

Does anyone ever ask whether the talking heads have journalism degrees?

You'd think they'd boast if they had degrees from Harvard, say.

[Odin2005]

11. This is a very bad idea. Could be used to go after bloggers and other citizen-journalists.

[Cleita]

35. Bloggers really aren't considered news outlets although it seems

they have filled a hole there. I can't see why it would affect them unless they want to start calling themselves legitimate news journals instead of blogs that cover certain news niches. I for one think it's a crime that I have to go to European news papers and news magazines to get the real news about my country.

[Posteritatis]

43. Or unless a legislature in a bad mood decides they should be regulated. (nt)

[Cleita]

44. It's up to us the people who vote to make sure that those kind of

legislators don't get elected to office.

[Posteritatis]

49. How'd that work out for ya between 2000 and 2008? (nt)

[Cleita]

58. Well, we know those elections were cheated on. n/t

[Posteritatis]

62. Every single congressional election? (nt)

[Sheltiemama]

54. Which I refer to as citizen "journalists."

Having a blog and an opinion does not make you a journalist. A former professor of mine told me that my college has eliminated the advanced editing class, which explains so much about the quality of the writing I'm seeing from younger journalists.

[KonaKane]

57. If I try to be a "citizen brain surgeon" without the proper training and licensing,

I wouldn't get very far before seeing the inside of a jail cell for a long long time.

[Cleita]

60. Where is what a lot of these actor/journalists on cable news should

be seeing IMHO.

[KonaKane]

64. HA! When you're right you're right.

That of course will cause a meltdown here, but I'm glad you said it.

[TransitJohn]

12. I'm a geologist, and I have to have a license.

So do beauticians. Why not journalists? They would have their own board to oversee licensing, just like every other profession. In fact, most labor studies scholars think that this is where the future of organized labor lies, since unionism is tanking.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Dup topic/Different source

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8441362&mesg_id=8441362



Journalism has never been a real professional business. There are no standards nor certifications. The so called principles have always been very *flexible* and the death of the existing media business model is making it worse. Adding to that and making it even harder today are web only sites, blogs, vlogs, and the open and acknowledged blending of reporting with opinion.

I categorically reject state licensing, but we also need to acknowledge the sorry state of news gathering today.

[KonaKane]

17. Oh, my apologies.

Thanks for the heads up. This topic interested me so that I didnt do a proper check for previous postings.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. NBD...its interesting to note the concerns are about the same.

[KonaKane]

19. Interesting follow up....

And here, right on the heels of this topic thread, is one lamenting the "bauble airheads" on CNN...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8444976

Would licensing improve that?

[melm00se]

22. michigan state constitution

states:

§ 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.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Constitution.pdf

requiring a license seems to violate this section.

[Cleita]

36. Why is lying and publishing fact less rumors considered

liberty of speech or of the press?

[KonaKane]

56. Search me. I think you nail why the licensing issue has come up at all.

It wouldn't if the institution of the press werent so vital to our system, and hadn't devolved to such a sorry state.

[melm00se]

87. because

the alternative is a far worse situation

[depakid]

89. Really?

That's the best defense you can put up for the PATHETIC state of "journalism" in the US?

A country where citizens can no longer even agree on basic objective facts?

[melm00se]

93. really? yes really

i am not prepared to piss away the 1st amendment because you and the rest of the anti-free speech cheerleaders that appear over and over again in this thread feel that the US journalism is "pathetic" (a subjective definition there).

I really think you need to seriously reflect on the following text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and remember that the founding fathers felt this Right was so important that is was the 1st right to be protected from government abuse.

[depakid]

94. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment

In fact, I'd hazard a guess that, beyond the bare text that you cite, you have no deeper understanding at all.

-and part of that can be blamed on the pathetic nature of "journalism" in the states.

[melm00se]

100. shall we discuss the nature of the 1st amendment?

it's purpose? the founding father's intent? the Supreme Court decisions that have curtailed it and reinforced it? Miller decision and "test"; the Sullivan decision? Schenk? NYT vs US? Hustler vs Falwell? Chaplinksy? and on and on?

Let's party.

My point is: licensing is the 1st step in controlling which also grants the power to, ultimately, destroy something.

While there are certain licensing/permitting processes and mechanisms that are legitimate under the 1st amendment (and the state level equivalents), most, if not all, are akin to "shall issue" permits.

Once you begin to march down that path, it is so easy for it to morph into something dark and ugly: decisions, made by ideological bureaucrats, made based upon the biases of the grantor.

Turn this around for a moment: Would you have trusted the Bush administration to fairly, equitably and without bias exercise this kind of power properly?

Look, historically there has always been bad journalism...William Randolph Hearst pops immediately to mind (look up "yellow" journalism and it's influence upon the Spanish American War)...attempting to chase it away and banish it by granting the government the ability to fundamentally control it will never pass Constitutional muster. A law like this gets passed and before the echo fades and the ink dry it will be challenged at the state and federal level and will get zapped into cinders.

[depakid]

104. None of that shotgun barrage has anything to do with requiring professional standards

for a press pass.

Nor does it have the first thing to do with the ability (or responsibility) of a public or private entity to only grant interviews or only place credible people on the air who meet the requisite standards.

Moreover, broadcast regulations for some 50 years (before they were unwisely repealed) provided accountability mechanisms (as other nations still do) that dealt with situations where outright lies (i.e. false statements of fact) were repeatedly propagated with impunity.

Not only are and were these consistent with the 1st Amendment, but they furthered its purposes (as you can read for yourself in federal court decisions and FCC rulings).

What you're arguing for is a broad and shallow perversion of the words which may have become the custom- but has never been the law in America.

[melm00se]

128. yes broadcast regulations

have been in place for sometime but they cover the how information is disseminated (assigning and maintaining frequency assignments, the maximum radiated power, ensuring that a station does not vary off established standards and the like) but they do not and were not intended to dictate the content other than obscenity (as established by the Miller decision), libel (the Sullivan decision) and the clear and present danger standard (the Schenk decision - so as you can see my comments above were not a shotgun blast and certainly on point).

I am also fully aware that the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right (as the various decisions listed above clearly demonstrate) but I am extremely leery and generally opposed to additional governmental restrictions (regardless of the "good" intentions) upon one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Some folks have pointed out that they "trust" foreign news services ahead of their own yet they seem to overlook the for more restrictive European regulations on freedom of expression. The Europeans pay lip service to this basic right. On the one hand the European Convention on Human Rights (something that all European Union members agree to abide by) grants the right of free speech but then EU members turnaround try, convict and outlaw people who make statements that they find offensive and as well as things (David Irving, the banning of burkas, Geert Wilders, Susanne Winter, Oriana Fallaci as well as many others) so that immediately, at least in my mind, the honesty and completeness of any report coming from there.

Like I said before, I'll take the looney-toon commentators and "reporters" and the perceived influence of big bad corporations than any regulations that open the door to government abuse of the freedom of the press.

[KonaKane]

132. You missed the "public trust" part.

Regulating the airwaves for traffic flow is only one part of the reason for licensing. The big part is the public trust, which basically says the stations have a contract with the public not to "abuse" their privilege by lying, spreading damaging material (porn etc) or otherwise causing harm or disfunction to the community.

Also, you are still cleaving to a straw man. No one here, especially me, likes the idea of "government abuse of the freedom of the press". We are talking about a state law that speaks to a much greater issue. If you have the institution of the press eventually made up of nothing but lying phonies and barely veiled commercials, its tatamount to losing that press.

[melm00se]

102. also don't forget

that there would be no:

Rachel Maddow
Chris Matthews
Ezra Klein
Andrew Sullivan
Hendrick Hertzberg
Matthew Yglesias
Maureen Dowd
Christopher Hitchens
Fareed Zakaria
David Shipley
Joshua Micah Marshall
Jon Stewart
Thomas Friedman
Fred Hiatt
Arianna Huffington
Paul Krugman
Randi Rhodes

Some of which, while holding advanced degrees, would have not hurdled the 1st barriers (the "other degree substantially equivalent" is incredibly ambiguous and likely to be abused) and would have thus been silenced and essentially blocked from gaining a journalist's license.

Please don't trample the 1st amendment to silence those with whom you disagree.

[KonaKane]

117. Its not about silencing dissent. Its about demanding excellence and credibility again.

Such standards would not silence anyone, it would merely make it easier to screen the dross out of the free press mechanism. For instance, I never agree with George Will, but he would certainly pass any standards I can think of.

[melm00se]

129. are you absolutely

sure - - - unequivocally and without reservation - - - that would not be abused by ideologues?

I most certainly am not...once the 1st step over the cliff is taken there is no taking it back, we might be able to retard it, slow it down but there is always an inexorable downward slide.

[KonaKane]

133. Not at all. But there is no guarantee in life about anything.

That's hardly a reason not to try and fix something that is worth fixing. The integrity and excellence of our press is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. Letting it go down the shithole just because you are squeamish about licensing and regulation is certainly a case of letting the baby get chucked out with the bathwater.

[KonaKane]

97. You fail to realize that licenses are required in many places for the right directly under the 1st

amendment. How would a journalist's license be any different?

[Cleita]

98. What alternative? Nothing could be worse than what is going on now. n/t

[Cleita]

24. Also, for those who are in favor of laissez faire journalism, how about England?

The government does rein in the excesses with some basic rules. I think you will find that the BBC, and Ruppert Murdoch trash are different over there because of it and back when we used to get CNNI on cable, there was a vast difference in our CNN and the one that comes from Europe or England to be exact.

[depakid]

71. I think it's partially due to people's expectations

In other western nations, people don't like being lied to or repeatedly played for fools.

[Uncle Joe]

25. Hell no and this isn't aimed at the traditional corporate owned media, this is aimed

at the Internet.

"Has the time come for mandating credibility and excellence in journalism?"

Who is going to mandate credibility and excellence in journalism, a Cheney/Bush administration?

Also your title is totally misleading, so you would probably lose your license if you have one.

Michigan doesn't think this should be done, one Republican Legislator is proposing it, that's a long way from the entire state of Michigan.

[KonaKane]

78. You have to admit, the internet is mostly BS.

Not that it doesn't have its gold nuggets of course, but lets not try and polish a turd here.

Also, you are correct that my OP title is not quite accurate (apologies for that). However, I am not pretending to be a journalist.

[Uncle Joe]

106. The Internet is the greatest freedom of speech enhancing power since the First Amendment was adopted

If you consider the people's voice of democracy to be a turd, have at it, I consider it a diamond; including the imperfections, if democracy and in turn the world is saved, the Internet will play a major, if not dominating role in that endeavor.

As for idea of licensing journalists, it won't end with the corporate owned journalists, the corrupted powers that be will try to spread it to the Internet in order to quell their voice of democracy, and whether you consider your self to be a journalist or not will become moot.

[KonaKane]

107. While I wouldnt want to do without it, it's also a grease trap for garbage.

From which the occassional diamond shows up. I guess you have to dig through alot of sludge to find a gem.

[Uncle Joe]

111. Once you know your way around, you don't have to dig through so much sludge.

Sites and posters establish reputations as to their credibility and quality of information.

Furthermore the instant, mass, two way public feedback is the best self correcting mechanism in existence and far superior to the narrow, one way, top down, conflict of interest laden, corporate media.

[KonaKane]

114. Oh, nonsense. Corporations figure it out, and jump in to take it out of your hands.

If you don't think that's in the works, you're dreaming. Also, the "internet little guy" soon becomes the corpo - see the Facebokk founders. The point is, a blessing like the internet doesnt stay a blessing for long.

[Uncle Joe]

123. That's why Net Neutrality must be defended and that's what I believe to be the real motivation

behind this idea of licensing journalists.

"Corporations figure it out, and jump in to take it out of your hands.

If you don't think that's in the works, you're dreaming. Also, the "internet little guy" soon becomes the corpo - see the Facebokk founders. The point is, a blessing like the internet doesnt stay a blessing for long."

If the little guy become wealthy by creating a popular website, more power to them, I don't have anything against that.

The Internet is ever-evolving and I don't believe any site or poster has a locked in monopoly on what remains popular, your post re: Facebook is an example of what I'm speaking about, if enough people feel as you do, that will change.

[Dr Morbius]

148. The internet is not alone in this regard.

The same applies to broadcast and cable journalism, and if it didn't, you wouldn't have created this thread.

The internet is indeed the best thing that could possibly have happened to disseminate information. Yes, there is much misinformation, but there has always been misinformation. Lying is as old as speaking.

I agree with your view that excellence needs to return to journalism. I don't think government should try to make that happen by weeding out bad journalists. Correct the problem of consolidation and the small choirs which comprise the "two sides" are replaced by a cacophony of varied and different views. When there are a few choices, people will habitually pick one and stay with it. When there are many choices, people start filtering through them. There will actually be a demand for excellence.

I believe government should also encourage, through PSAs and other methods, Americans to get their news from a variety of sources. I can make a good argument that you're not being a good citizen, and in fact are operating against your own best interests as a free person, when you get all your news from any one source. Want to watch Fox News? Sure, go ahead, but once in a while tune in to Rachel Maddow as well. Love the New York Times? Why? Well, never mind, go ahead and love that NY Times paper all you like but once in a while read the Wall Street Journal. Expose yourself to both sides.

Now, the state of Michigan doesn't allow every blogger who wants a seat to attend a press conference from the governor, right? I don't have a problem with journalists needing licenses or credentials; I have a large problem with government issuing those credentials.

[crazyjoe]

27. guess we will have to shut down some web sites then

[taterguy]

29. IIRC, Bernstein didn't have a degree

And I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

(Says a somewhat bitter person that flunked the UNC J-School Spelling and Grammer test twice)

[LiberalFighter]

30. What State Senator Patterson is saying is that he can't tell the difference

between a real news organization and a fake one?

[Raineyb]

150. Then he should stop watching Fox. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

31. Should Michigan state legislators be licensed?

[hayu_lol]

33. Michigan is another state desparate for new tax revenue...

here they have come up with a new source. I wonder however, if junior high/high school 'journalists' will have to have licenses?

Next up: finding a way to tax the 02 we breathe.

[n.michigan]

34. Oh Hell yes. And why not A SPECIAL TAX on Politicians- instead of the tax on MI teachers?

Can a law be outright discriminatory? In Senate Bill 1227 they taxed all teachers 3% for their newly created retirement fund (and made sure the language does not guarantee health care)in order to save their mismanaged budget problems. And with proposed SJR "U" they would take 5% from all public employees to lower salaries. So 8% targeted hit folks! What Mi family can afford that?

I say we do the same for the immoral politicians.

[n.michigan]

42. Heh! New law to TAX the POLITICAL PARTIES- Shake them down and make a fortune for the states

[MrScorpio]

40. I wonder if he's related to L. Brooks Patterson, because both of these guys are republican assholes

It's just another attempt by the GOP to muzzle a free press.

[Fire1]

47. I happen to like ole "Brooksie." n/t

[Mimosa]

46. Never heard of anything so un-Constitutional (at least not in many years) eom

[KonaKane]

72. If you have a gun, is it licensed?

Are your local radio stations licensed?

Are your local newspaper outlets licensed?

[GreenStormCloud]

74. None of my guns are licensed.

Texas doesn't require that. Neither do most states.

[KonaKane]

77. Yet it's constitutional to do so.

If thats true, then why couldn't it be constitutional as well to license journalists?

[GreenStormCloud]

79. Maybe it is constitutional. That is still to be decided.

I see no reason for the government to know what guns I have. I am not a person, whom by due process, has lost the right to have guns? Why does the government need to know?

Come on down the the guns forum and you can get a lively argument on your view about guns.

[KonaKane]

84. I'm a gun owner, you wont get an argument from me. But you're sidestepping the issue

which is, we legally license certain activities that have to do with the public safety and trust. Why should journalism be any different?

[kestrel91316]

141. Now I get it. You're just in a snit over some states requiring your precious guns

be licensed.

I knew there had to be SOME explanation for your insane opposition to FREE speech.

[LiberalFighter]

105. Radio and Televisions stations I believe are licensed to use the airwaves

[KonaKane]

108. Correct. Have you read the content of those licenses?

The thrust of them is that they agree not to abuse the "public trust" which means they are basically to be a positive force in the community. How does deteriorating junk journalism benefit my community, again?

[saras]

50. Let's get pragmatic...

According to the bill, reporters must provide the licensing board proof of:
"Good moral character" and demonstrate they have industry "ethics standards acceptable to the board."
No one who's ever been busted in a protest, or had other legal trouble, or has ethics other than that of the business community who will undoubtedly form the licensing board. Sounds neutral and fair to me. And certainly no pot smokers, skateboarders, illegal aliens, or other criminals.

Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
Yes, we all know what a difference this makes. No one in America without a degree has a thought worth thinking, and the process of getting a degree virtually guarantees one's eternal rightness.

Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
No citizen reporters. Ever. And you can't really get started unless you have a big organization to cover for you for three years. That will keep things honest, giving them time to learn what pays before getting to actually say anything.

Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
Absolutely. I don't want to hear about any critique, I just want to know which industry groups gave them memberships

Three or more writing samples.
There's that "no citizen reporters" again. Love it.

Reporters will also have to pay an application and registration fee.
Good. They have to be in it for the money, and have free bucks to spend. The fee should be around ten grand or so, to keep the riff-raff out, and it shouldn't be good for long, maybe one year.

The only thing missing is that the business and investment community ought to be able to go through their entire online life and veto them for anything they disapprove of. Other than that detail, it seems like a fine idea.

[TransitJohn]

Identical to being an attorney, an engineer, or a geologist.

And journalists have a much more immediate effect on the lives of the people of this country. Sounds good.

[kestrel91316]

142. Sounds like they don't want physicians or veterinarians to report knowledgeably

on their respective fields of expertise. Guess its better to leave the reporting to people who can't even SPELL OR PRONOUNCE veterinarian, and have zero comprehension of anything biological or medical.

Yeah. That will work.

[Sheltiemama]

51. Oh, so many things wrong with this.

Then again, I'm a copy editor, and he seems concerned only with reporters.

Who determines "good moral character?"

A journalism degree? More papers are using freelancers now, no journalism degree required. Apparently, ownership of an AP Stylebook isn't required, either.

Awards? Most local reporters toil away with little to no recognition. They're just happy to still have jobs.

The fact that he spoke to Fox, which airs Glenn Beck, tells me he doesn't have a firm grasp on the concept of legitimacy.

[ShadowLiberal]

52. This can only work at the federal level, and the neocons would use such a lw to make the media worse

Unfortunately such a thing would only work at a federal level, and think of how the federal election committee works, very inefficient, with a 3/3 divide, lately republicans on it have been refusing to enforce valid campaign finance laws, and that's just what kind of stuff would happen at the federal level. the Republicans would use abuse it and use it to make the media even worse, they wouldn't rest until they abuse such a system to turn the entire media into Fox news.

[proteus_lives]

53. God, that's an awful idea.

:thumbsdown:

[KonaKane]

59. Think speech is never licensed?

Go try to operate a radio station without the required licenses and see what happens.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. No way in Hell.

This kind of law would violate the very foundation of what being a progressive is supposed to be about. That idea is Facism parading as Liberalism.

[KonaKane]

65. So then I have two questions for you:

1. Are you satisfied with the state of the press today?

2. If not, what would you propose to fix it?

[Cetacea]

68. Empower journalists to create more outlets.

It's not the journalists fault.

[KonaKane]

70. It's not the journalists' fault?

Well I only half agree with that. The Rupert Murdochs of the world left unchecked, we see that they have gladly taken a huge dump on the institution of journalism, but you are quite ready to excuse the journalist in all this? I'm certainly not. I would expect a degree of expertise, professionalism and ethics from any one of them. That only comes from within.

Wouldn't you?

[Cetacea]

101. You are referring to owners and publishers.

And I am talking about the people who get killed trying to show the rest of us the injustices going on around the world. I despise Fox as much as anyone.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. The current state beats the alternative.

You propose government censorship. Freedom may be messy, but it beats the hell out of the dictatorship you would create. The solution is to let all voices speak, and let the people listen to whom they will listen to. It is called democracy.

[KonaKane]

76. The alternative, meaning the press down the shithole of history?

Sorry but that doesn't look like a nice alternative to me. I'd prefer to salvage what vestiges of the institution we have left.

By the way, *I* did not propose anything. I posted an article about a law Michigan is considering. I was looking for opinions on it. I certainly have not made up my mind on the subject.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. That law would flush the press down the shit hole of history.

It would eventually crate the kind of press that Kim in North Korea has - total government control of the press. I will happily take the messiness of freedom over the order of tyranny.

[KonaKane]

122. I think you are exaggerating.

Radio and TV stations have to be licensed to operate in the airwaves. The crux of the license agreement is the promise to operate "in the public trust" meaning they will not abuse the privilege of the airwaves to harm the community (like say, for instance, using their station as a 24/7 lie generating machine).

How on earth could demanding some semblence of journalistic excellence and ethics be 'total government censorship"?

[Posteritatis]

81. And yet you accuse censorship's opponents of being freepers. (nt)

[KonaKane]

85. Where, exactly?

.

[depakid]

67. It's an excellent idea- though perhaps not with these exact provisions

Getting a press pass should involve some study and one should have to at least pass an ethics test.

The trouble in America is- and this is quite unique among western nations- is that so called journalism" has degraded to the extent that outright lying has not only become acceptable behavior, but is rewarded. As a result, people in the states can no longer even agree on what the basic objective facts are.

Some sort of accountability methods need to be restored if the nation's ever going to solve its problems.

[demodonkey]

88. Well, I guess Benjamin Franklin would be out of luck in Michigan....

...He could not publish anything because as I recall he had no degree in Journalism.

Hmm. A lot of our great writers were not a "real" journalist.

[KonaKane]

95. Benjamin Franklin would puke in his stew if he saw what journalism has become

please don't raise his good name in the current mess.

[michreject]

90. One thing I've noticed about journalists describing a shooting

If the guy got shot with a shotgun, It's reported as a AK-47. If someone is shot with a hunting rifle, It's reported as a AK-47. If the killing is done with a single shot 22, It's reported as a AK-47.

I didn't know there were that many AK-47's in the country.

[KonaKane]

124. I haven't seen that. But I have seen them routinely confuse "rifle" and "gun".

The differences of which I am sure you are aware. As an owner of an AK-47 myself, I would too be surprised to know there are so many of "us" out there.

[michreject]

147. I own a Norinco

One of the better ones. It's been 922r'd.

[cherokeeprogressive]

91. I gots a blog. Fuckin' A I'm a journalist. Journalism, after all, is in the eye of the beholder.

Idn't it?

[volvoblue]

92. there needs to be something done

maybe not to this degree but, something needs to be done to get basic facts to the public and limit the misinformation fed.

[KonaKane]

96. There is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of the laissez faire press advocates

They, and their cohorts in other areas of the market, hold this notion that you have to just let everything go out there and the best will last because it will be the choice of the populace. Clearly they have not been paying attention, because the populace will choose and support a pretty lie over an ugly truth any day of the week. It's pretty silly to think that the free market is a crucible that will produce "the truth in print" if allowed to play out.

[Dr Morbius]

149. No, not the free market. The free press.

What the Republicans and the conservatives call a "free market" is really an anarchistic market where the big dogs run the show. It's a misunderstanding of how freedom works.

The solution lies not in applying licenses or trying to weed out the bad journalists. The solution lies in the application of accountability. Did you know Fox News once won a lawsuit, I think in Florida, by demonstrating there's no law requiring them to tell the truth? It's true; here's a link:

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

So pass such laws! Implement a system of severe fines for repeated misstatements. Pass a law requiring stations to constantly display the accuracy percentage of the channel: Fox News, fair and balanced and actually truthful 15% of the time! Implement some system of accountability, because freedom doesn't work without everyone involved taking personal responsibility. Freedom is taken too often to mean anything goes, and no one will hold you accountable, and that's dead wrong. Freedom means embracing accountability, that I will take THIS action and whatever happens as a result, I welcome it, I own it.

There's no accountability in journalism. Fix that before deciding to limit access!

[Fading Captain]

99. Corporations KNOW the public doesn't want journalism

The public wants entertainment. They want "news" as long as it feeds their world view.

[KonaKane]

119. Which is what used to set journalism apart from McDonalds.

See, McDonalds wants to sell you what you want. Journalism used to offer you what it wanted - which was the truth as it could best determine. Whether you accepted it, or wanted to witness it, was left up to you.

I'm sad to see that journalism die.

[marmar]

103. A Michigan legislator thinks so.....that headline is a bit broad, n'est-ce pas?

nt

[KonaKane]

109. You are correct. I'll try to change it.

I got a little caught up in the topic when I posted. Thanks.

[KonaKane]

110. Folks please read the topic header as "Michigan LAWMAKER thinks so." Thanks.

I tried to edit it but got the "editting period has expired" warning. My bad.

[glen123098]

126. Anyone who supports this bill is not a liberal or progressive. Instead they are a fascist.

[KonaKane]

134. Is special licensing for truck drivers "fascist" as well?

Because it happens. They do it because driving a big rig is vital to our intrastate commerce and supplies for living, and it also requires extra skills and training to operate and maintain such vehicles.

Is our press less valuable than truck drivers?

[glen123098]

137. Driving a truck isn't speech.

Journalism is speech. Only fascists try to regulate and control speech.

[kestrel91316]

143. Two words: public SAFETY. Trucks and cars may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

[TommyO]

127. What part of the First Amendment is Mr. Patterson not understanding?

TextCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of abridging the freedom of the press is he missing? This proposal, even if enacted in law, is unconstitutional through and through.

[KonaKane]

135. If licensing is an abridgement of a freedom, then you have a pack of problems

Starting with gun regulation on down. You sure you want to open that jar of pickles?

[kestrel91316]

144. There you go again about guns. GET OUT OF YOUR PRO-GUN SNIT.

Waaahhhhhhh, they restrict guns but not speech, waaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

[Imajika]

136. What is the real goal here?

Do you really just sympathize with this because you feel the press is too right wing? I mean, are you really interested in professional journalism, or is it that there is too much in the media you disagree with and it makes you mad? I'm pretty sure these Fox News people can get journalism degrees too, most probably have them. Will this board be judging the message journalist are communicating and determining how fair it is? Who are you to judge fair? Aren't you biased to your point of view. Why would this licensing board be any different? Wouldn't it have it's own biases and world view?

The last election saw a Democratic President elected along with overwhelming majorities in Congress. If it is the right wing media you are worried about, you probably should consider the 2008 election cycle and then realize that all the wingnut shouting didn't stop Americans from voting for the center left party.

”'Good moral character' and demonstrate they have industry 'ethics standards acceptable to the board.'"

Why is this necessary? Who determines what good moral character is? What difference does it make? Should a serial adulterer with a booze problem not be able to report on State politics? Why not? They may be a better journalist - personal issues and all.

"Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent"

Why? Sure, universities might love this, but why is it necessary? One doesn't need a college degree to learn to be good at something.

"Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information"

So to be a board certified journalist, you need 3 years of reporting experience? Again, why?

"Awards or recognition related to being a reporter."

There are lots of news sites that will never win an award because they have a far left slant, does this mean they can't be considered journalists?

"Three or more writing samples."

Err, okay.

"Reporters will also have to pay an application and registration fee"

Hmmm. Set the fee so high that only networks and major newspapers can afford them? Nice way to end up with a little cabal of insiders/friends and weed out anyone that might ask anything challenging.

This proposed law is terrible in every conceivable way. I am shocked anyone here would think this is a good idea.

[kestrel91316]

146. He's just an angry gun owner. He wants speech restricted just like guns,

because, well, you know, they are identical.

:banghead:

[Greyhound]

138. Possibly the dumbest, most dangerous idea I've heard in years. n/t

[kestrel91316]

139. 1st Amendment rights FAIL.

[NashVegas]

145. In Case He Hasn't Noticed, Most Newspaper Writers Are Journalism Grads

And that hasn't helped any.

I'm not even sure I think the aim is noble.

Most of the professional media has been cowed into becoming Burger King hamburger-flippers-with-a-keyboard, if you know what I mean.