"Accredited Clinical Journalist"

[Ted King]

Grace62 wrote:


Ted, the journalists who just reported the White House line pre-Iraq without much question WERE the journalists considered to be the most "objective" by the mainstream media at the time. They would've had those little letters after their names, giving even more credence to what they were saying. Also, they were duped by the White House, but that's another story.

The BBC was far less gullible than the American press, but that country still went to war with us.

I think you're trying to apply a concept that works really well in academia and in the realm of health sciences and some other professions and apply it to something that is more art than science, and that is journalism.
It just makes no sense to me to have some panel sitting around deciding who are the most worthy journalists, and giving them some seal of approval. That's like having some panel hang around the Met and decide who the really good singers are, and give them some special letters to put after their names. It's art. It just doesn't lend itself to that type of qualification. The person might sing well today, and then suck tomorrow.
We'll know if someone is consistently really good, because, well, we just know.

I don't see where what I said has the implication in it that there would be some panel "deciding who the most worthy journalists" are. The boards that certify surgeons don't decide, "hey, these guys are the most worthy surgeons". What they do is verify that the person who has their accreditation has the skills to do particular kinds of surgery. That's all the journalism association would do - verify that the accredited person has the skills to do objective reports. And just like a surgeon can have his accreditation taken away for not actually performing by the standards of the board, the journalism association could do the same to journalists who didn't perform by the standards necessary to maintain the accreditation. Sure journalism is a big part art form, but so is surgery. Even though that is the case, there are plenty of aspects to both surgery and journalism that are identifiable skill sets that can be assessed as being present - that's all the certification means, not that the certified surgeons (or journalists) are most worthy.

There's something I don't get with this. I keep getting the impression that many people who've responded don't think that it is possible for a journalism association to identify what is or is not objective reporting, but, in spite of that, the alternative put forward is for consumers of news reports to use the critical thinking skills to ferret out that which is objective from a hodge-podge of journalistic sources. It sure seems like what is being said is that regular old news consumers using critical thinking skills can do something that an association made of journalism academics and practitioners can't.

[Grace62]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Grace62]


Ted, the journalists who just reported the White House line pre-Iraq without much question WERE the journalists considered to be the most "objective" by the mainstream media at the time. They would've had those little letters after their names, giving even more credence to what they were saying. Also, they were duped by the White House, but that's another story.

The BBC was far less gullible than the American press, but that country still went to war with us.

I think you're trying to apply a concept that works really well in academia and in the realm of health sciences and some other professions and apply it to something that is more art than science, and that is journalism.
It just makes no sense to me to have some panel sitting around deciding who are the most worthy journalists, and giving them some seal of approval. That's like having some panel hang around the Met and decide who the really good singers are, and give them some special letters to put after their names. It's art. It just doesn't lend itself to that type of qualification. The person might sing well today, and then suck tomorrow.
We'll know if someone is consistently really good, because, well, we just know.

I don't see where what I said has the implication in it that there would be some panel "deciding who the most worthy journalists" are. The boards that certify surgeons don't decide, "hey, these guys are the most worthy surgeons". What they do is verify that the person who has their accreditation has the skills to do particular kinds of surgery. That's all the journalism association would do - verify that the accredited person has the skills to do objective reports. And just like a surgeon can have his accreditation taken away for not actually performing by the standards of the board, the journalism association could do the same to journalists who didn't perform by the standards necessary to maintain the accreditation. Sure journalism is a big part art form, but so is surgery. Even though that is the case, there are plenty of aspects to both surgery and journalism that are identifiable skill sets that can be assessed as being present - that's all the certification means, not that the certified surgeons (or journalists) are most worthy.

There's something I don't get with this. I keep getting the impression that many people who've responded don't think that it is possible for a journalism association to identify what is or is not objective reporting, but, in spite of that, the alternative put forward is for consumers of news reports to use the critical thinking skills to ferret out that which is objective from a hodge-podge of journalistic sources. It sure seems like what is being said is that regular old news consumers using critical thinking skills can do something that an association made of journalism academics and practitioners can't.
Ted, I fully appreciate your desire to make it easier for people to tell who is objective, and who is not, when it comes to news reporting. However, journalism is not like surgery, in so many important ways. Could a person become a surgeon without going to medical school, without doing a residency, without a state medical license, and without passing the board exam? We have those things in place due to the nature of the job, and the fact that they could kill someone.
In journalism, it's really kind of a free for all in terms of qualifications. Walter Cronkite didn't graduate from college, Edward R. Murrow worked in education before broadcasting and had no journalism degree. Many prominent journalists lack what might be considered the right credentials, so you couldn't base much on that. How much of their writing would you have to evaluate before you declared them "certified?" How many people in broadcast news even write their own stuff? What about talking heads who just read what producers write? Would the producers get the letters, the public doesn't even know who they are. Would the network get the letters? That doesn't make much sense.
As to your last question, no, others cannot do our critical thinking for us. We have to evaluate information freely and make the best decisions that we can. We don't need a filter for this, because that would impede the free flow of information. That we have a lot of information and that it is sometimes wrong is both the gift and shortcoming of a free and open society.

[RgrF]

Has anyone here attended or been "graduated" from an unaccredited high-school or college/university?

I though not.

Once accreditation becomes the goal, the game begins. A game that only the most inept find a way to fail.

[Ted King]

Grace62 wrote:

Ted, I fully appreciate your desire to make it easier for people to tell who is objective, and who is not, when it comes to news reporting. However, journalism is not like surgery, in so many important ways. Could a person become a surgeon without going to medical school, without doing a residency, without a state medical license, and without passing the board exam? We have those things in place due to the nature of the job, and the fact that they could kill someone.
In journalism, it's really kind of a free for all in terms of qualifications. Walter Cronkite didn't graduate from college, Edward R. Murrow worked in education before broadcasting and had no journalism degree. Many prominent journalists lack what might be considered the right credentials, so you couldn't base much on that. How much of their writing would you have to evaluate before you declared them "certified?" How many people in broadcast news even write their own stuff? What about talking heads who just read what producers write? Would the producers get the letters, the public doesn't even know who they are. Would the network get the letters? That doesn't make much sense.
As to your last question, no, others cannot do our critical thinking for us. We have to evaluate information freely and make the best decisions that we can. We don't need a filter for this, because that would impede the free flow of information. That we have a lot of information and that it is sometimes wrong is both the gift and shortcoming of a free and open society.

I'm thinking we've both laid out our points of view fairly comprehensively - there probably isn't much new territory to tread here. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :-) Thanks for the interesting discussion.