03-01-2011, 11:00 PM
Grace62 wrote:
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?
I think your Iraq war example implies the opposite of what you think it does. If NYT and NPR journalists had been objective (as they would have to try very hard to be to retain a ACJ standing) then they would not have been "beating the war drums". If the vast majority of main stream media had been objective then it would have been the war drum beaters who would have been marginalized. I think if journalist accreditation had been in place during the lead up to the Iraq war, we would have been less likely to have been duped into the war. It was a classic case of the lines being blurred between objective reporting and advocacy of a particular point of view - the very thing that having accreditation should help ameliorate.
I don't think an optional journalism accreditation would lead to the marginalization of non-accredited people as sources of information about what is going on in the world. I think it would crisp up a line that has been getting more and more blurred. People would tend to look for ACJ when they want just the facts, ma'am. But most people would also look to other sources for information and interpretation that goes beyond just the facts, ma'am. The good thing is that they could be more confident about the base facts from which to try to understand the other information and interpretations.
You asked, "Again, who would get to decide the standards, and choose which journalists pass muster? What about THEIR biases?" The same concern could be asked about any accrediting agency, couldn't it?
I would like to clarify that there would be nothing from stopping a ACJ journalist from creating whatever report they wanted - regarding or disregarding accrediting criteria as they choose - as long as they did not put the "ACJ" on their byline. I can see them doing so in a great many longer "color" reports from an individual perspective can add value for a lot of consumers of the report. You mentioned something in an earlier post about liking depth and breadth in a report. There are times when I like that, too. But I think that depth and breadth can be thought of as informational context for the main feature of the report. It seems to me that a journalist could make a longer report where they stuck to the accreditation guidelines in presenting that greater informational context. If you mean depth and breadth to also include non-objective elements, then I can see the value in that as well, but, then it would be easy for the journalist to not sign the report "ACJ".