+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" (/showthread.php?tid=112874)
"Accredited Clinical Journalist" - Ted King - 03-01-2011
It seems that more and more the line between "good" journalism and opinion/entertainment is getting blurred. I think that is bad for a great many reasons, perhaps most of all because it makes it very difficult to discern the valid information from what is essentially opinion. So this pipe dream of an idea occurred to me:
If there are people with the right motivation and knowledge about what it takes to be as objective in creating reports as is practicable given human nature (a really big "if", I know), I would love to see them get together and form a private non-profit association that would establish criteria that someone would have to meet to be able to publicize that they are communicating as an "Accredited Clinical Journalist"; ACJ.
I realize that this falls into dreamer territory, but just playing with the idea, I can see where there are a lot of questions that would need to be answered:
- Who would make up this private non-profit association that would give out the accreditations? I think journalism academics with a record of advocating journalistic objectivity would be a primary source. But I think it would be good for the association to also have practicing journalists with solid reputations for objectivity.
- How would people know that a report was written by an accredited journalist? I think this is very important. People would need to have a simple way to identify a report by an accredited journalist so that they could be more confident in the information contained in the report. I think the simple way to do that would be for the author of the report to put the acronym "ACJ" after their names at the beginning of the report. I think it would be fine for the journalist to write opinion pieces, but the opinion pieces should not have the ACJ on them.
- Would someone have to get the accreditation to be called a journalist? No, I don't see why that should be the case. Anyone could call themselves a journalist, but they would have to get the accreditation to legitimately put the ACJ after their names on reports.
- What if someone with the accreditation made reports that lacked the objectivity in the standards for accreditation? I think there would need to be a review committee from the accrediting association that people could file complaints with that would investigate those complaints and could suspend or cancel the journalist's accreditation. It would probably be helpful if there was a law in place to make illegal to misrepresent oneself as having accreditation when they don't.
- Probably the hardest question is... what criteria would be used to determine if a report is objective enough? What does it mean to say a report is objective? I suppose you could say that such a report must stay very tightly to only the who, what, why and when that are clearly known. But a great deal of the time an important part of the story is the opinions of disagreeing parties - reporting that objectively can be really tricky.
I'm sure there are lots more questions. What do you think? (I'm especially curious about Gutenburg's opinion.)
When I am looking for objective information I would really like to be able to look for some kind of accreditation thing next to the name of the person doing the report so that I could have a reasonable amount of confidence that the person at least made a good effort at being objective. Other than the idea I put forth here (which may very well be pie-in-the-sky), does anyone have any other ideas on how such a thing could be done? Or do you think that there really isn't much of a problem with reporting the way it is done now?
I'm not too crazy about the term "Accredited Clinical Journalist" but I couldn't come up with anything better. Anybody got any other ideas?
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - mattkime - 03-01-2011
Bullshit free?
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - swampy - 03-01-2011
It might make more sense to teach kids how to distinguish the
difference between objectivity in reporting and opinion.
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - Grace62 - 03-01-2011
I'm not getting the rather creative use of the word "clinical" here Ted, since we're not talking about treating patients.
Anyway, there already exists a "Socity of Professional Journalists" and they have a published code of ethics. At the heart of that code is thoroughness and honesty...
"SPJ Code of Ethics
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."
We also have the First Amendment, thank goodness. This is a blessing but it requires of the public a great deal of critical thinking to sort through all the opinionated blathering, some of it masquerading as journalism. I don't see any way to make this easier for people, nor would I want to.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - Grace62 - 03-01-2011
swampy wrote:
It might make more sense to teach kids how to distinguish the
difference between objectivity in reporting and opinion.
We're in complete agreement Swampy!
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - Ted King - 03-01-2011
Grace62 wrote:
I'm not getting the rather creative use of the word "clinical" here Ted, since we're not talking about treating patients.
I get what you are saying, but the use of "clinical" is not all that creative. Dictionary "clinical":
1. pertaining to a clinic.
2. concerned with or based on actual observation and treatment of disease in patients rather than experimentation or theory.
3. extremely objective and realistic; dispassionately analytic; unemotionally critical: She regarded him with clinical detachment.
Grace62 wrote:
Anyway, there already exists a "Socity of Professional Journalists" and they have a published code of ethics. At the heart of that code is thoroughness and honesty...
"SPJ Code of Ethics
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."
That sounds good, but I don't see where there's any teeth to it. Is there any consequence if the journalists do not live up to the code?
Grace62 wrote: We also have the First Amendment, thank goodness. This is a blessing but it requires of the public a great deal of critical thinking to sort through all the opinionated blathering, some of it masquerading as journalism. I don't see any way to make this easier for people, nor would I want to.
Nothing I presented in the OP works against the First Amendment, I don't see why that is relevant. Sure, critical thinking is desirable (as a science teacher of gifted kids I stressed that a LOT), but there are other important areas of our lives where we depend on certificated people rather than having to rely on our own critical thinking skills. I could use my critical thinking skills to do my income taxes but I rely on a CPA to do them for me. Not everyone has the time or inclination to use critical thinking in certain areas of their lives. Why not make it easier to find objective information?
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - Grace62 - 03-01-2011
Ted,
WHO gets to decide what is TRUE?
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - Grace62 - 03-01-2011
Grace62 wrote:
Ted,
WHO gets to decide what is TRUE?
Your truth may not be my truth.
I want the option to hear all the stories. I don't want someone else to decide whose voice has merit, and whose does not.
Journalists have fought for that right for centuries. I would prefer more openness in reporting, not less.
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - Grace62 - 03-01-2011
Oh, and based on that definition of "clinical," and sorry but I find that usage odd, that's not the type of writing I prefer. The journalists I respect most bring their full selves into their writing, their full experience. They are not "detached" from the experiences about which they write, like robots. That does not mean they are telling falsehoods, it means they write with richness and depth.
Re: "Accredited Clinical Journalist" - $tevie - 03-01-2011
Look at this article from the Moonie Paper.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/boehner-rips-bid-to-regulate-internet/
It may very well be a Press Release from Boehner's office, I don't know. You know what it is NOT? It is not reportage. There is no background to Boehner's remarks, no quotes from Democrats spelling out their intentions nor cites of the legislation he is complaining about. There is no way for the reader to know exactly what the hell Boehner is going on about except what they have brought to the table themselves. That is NOT the way you write a news article.
So never mind whether people are letting/putting their opinions into their articles. They should at least be mindful of that old saw: Who What When Where and Why, and not publish a series of quotes with no context or story behind the story.