03-01-2011, 09:28 PM
I think what you suggest is an impediment to first amendment freedom of the press Ted. Here's why. Any such "accreditation," in order for it to have any meaning whatsoever, would have to carry some weight of authority. That means that the people who receive it would have more power in their profession, and those not receiving would risk being marginalized. This would impact how they report, and who they choose to investigate. That limits freedom of the press, something we rely upon for a free and open society.
Again, who would get to decide the standards, and choose which journalists pass muster? What about THEIR biases?
Here's an example. Think about the run up to the Iraq war. Well-respected journalists such as those at the NYT, NPR, and other well-regarded outlets were beating the war drums and accepting mostly without question that Iraq had WMD's. Those questioning this assumption were mostly on the outer edges of journalism.
If we were to develop some sort of accreditation, people like NYT reporters would likely get it, and some of the lesser known bloggers, who have been instrumental in uncovering governmental
wrong-doing, would have a tougher time. Do you see the problem?
Again, who would get to decide the standards, and choose which journalists pass muster? What about THEIR biases?
Here's an example. Think about the run up to the Iraq war. Well-respected journalists such as those at the NYT, NPR, and other well-regarded outlets were beating the war drums and accepting mostly without question that Iraq had WMD's. Those questioning this assumption were mostly on the outer edges of journalism.
If we were to develop some sort of accreditation, people like NYT reporters would likely get it, and some of the lesser known bloggers, who have been instrumental in uncovering governmental
wrong-doing, would have a tougher time. Do you see the problem?