Welcome to SPJ Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Please note: Some of SPJ's longstanding members and national leaders have, throughout the years, debated the concept addressed here. For the most part, they've shot it down without ever taking it to SPJ's much larger membership for debate. I think it's time to change that -- especially given the rise of technology and the current state of the news industry. I urge you to participate in this discussion. Your input is invaluable. Thanks so much.

SPJ's president always gets a WHOLE BUNCH of e-mail. This year, one question has popped up from all sorts of different corners:

"Who is a journalist?" I have been asked -- and asked over and over again.

Clearly, the rise of digital media challenges old ways of thinking about who deserves the title. But if you ask me, today's bloggers and online-only newsies are a much greater reflection of the people (think pamphleteers) the First Amendment was crafted to protect than are journalists working for well established, traditional (all right, "mainstream") news organizations.

As far as I'm concerned -- and a lot of people won't like reading this -- a journalist is someone who is gathering information for the purposes of distributing it. Is that a brroooooaaad definition? Absolutely. (And, for what it's worth, it's the definition media lawyers routinely press the courts and lawmakers to recognize). But journalism is for everyone, not just those who make their primary living from it.

So, methinks the better question for those of us fighting to improve and protect responsible and ethical journalism to ask is, "Who is a 'professional' journalist?"

I know. I know. Journalism is a trade, not a profession. But if journalists who are formally trained and who make their primary living by working in the news business are going to differentiate themselves from the rapidly rising number of truly irresponsible hacks out there (who are, arguably journalists) and retain the public's trust, they need to give "professionalization" some serious thought.

If SPJ wants to find new ways to remain highly relevant to the larger news industry, its members will not brush off this idea without serious consideration.

I am a fan of Philip Meyer, a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (all right, he was my ethics professor ...) and author of The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age. He writes (and I'm pretty sure he'll forgive me for reproducing so much of his text given the questions being put before you):

"Certification seems to be at odds with our libertarian tradition.It sounds like a step toward licensing. But, on further examination and discussion, some possible benefits (already have been) identified and acknowledged.

"A certificate is basically a piece of paper that says some recognized agency has examined a person's ability and found him or her qualified in certain areas and at certain levels of skill. A high school diploma is a certificate, and it is one most employers, including the U.S. Army, recognize. If nothing else, it sorts the good risks from the bad. At the same time, it does not make it impossible for the non-holder to get a job, and it certainly doesn't make it illegal. It is a way of communicating information that follows a standard definition.

"If we think of certification as a form of communication, then it makes quite a good fit to our libertarian leanings and our desire for openness. Communication requires language, and to use language we need definitions. A certification program would enable a job applicant to deonstrate to a potential employer some concrete and instantly understandable evidence of a specified level of skill. Computer professionals have already found this concept useful, and a number of private training instutitions have sprung up to create certification programs in specific computer skills.

"Journalism schools are already under pressure to provide midcareer training so that those who graduated before the compuer's use became so common feel less disadvantaged in comparison to new, computer-ready graduates. A certification program would be a logical part of a midcareer training program. And both the schools and the midcareer students should be comfortable with it since a journalism degree is itself a form of certification. So, for that matter, is a passing grade in any specific skills course.

"Who will step up and volunteer (to devise certification programs)? Specialists in fields that are easy to define but hard to learn would make good candidates. In 1998, the medical editor of ABC News, Timothy Johnson, made a compelling argument for certification of medical journalists.

"'Unlike the reporting of standard news, which requires general journalistic skills and familiarity with the subject matter,' he said, 'good medical-news reporting requires additional and very specific skills in the understanding of biostatistics and epidemiology.'

"Johnson, who is a physcian and holds a master's degree in public health, said not all medical journalists would need as much formal training as he has had. But he argued for 'some kind of system to ensure that those who wish to become medical journalists have a basic knowledge of the subject and some way of certifying them that would be recognized by employers and the reading and viewing and listening public.

"A precedent exists in television. Many TV weathermen are certified meteorologists by the American Meteorological Society. Getting accurate information about developments in medicine is surely at least as important as getting reliable weather information.

"Biologists and social scientists alike are starting to agree that moral systems are formed and persist because they have survival value for the social groupings tha create them. Journalism's traditional value set was based on the economic and mechanical constraints of the newspaper business. New information technology is forcing us to experiment with new ways of working, and that necessarily means experimenting with new ways of defining and organizing our occupational specialties. Professionalism is a higher form of organization toward which the increasing and more complex responsiblities of journalism invevitably will push us. It is a necessary condition for our survival, but by no means a sufficient one. Having well-qualified workers does no good if industry won't pay enough to attract them. In 2002, entry-level newspaper salaries declined in current as well as inflation-adjusted dollars.

"The corruption of professional functions by corporations and partnerships has become quite visible in the more established professions such as accounting and medicine. A professional is a flesh-and-blood person who can empathize with his or her customers and suppliers and feels the need for social support in the community. A corporation possesses the legal characteristics of a person but has 'no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked' and therefore lacks the humanistic concerns of a real person. But if business -- including the news business -- is going to be reformed, the initiative should come from those souls and bodies who toil in the field ith professional responsibilities in mind.

"If journalism is to survive, it will need a professional apparatus as one of the tools in the fight. Trying to reform investors, editors and publishers is a good idea, but let's not wait for those people to change their ways. Those of us who practice or teach journalism at ground level will make progress at greater speed and certainty if we also organize to reform ourselves. If we can do that, then the next generation of journalists will be ready to work when the process of natural selection chooses the new media forms where trust and social responsiblity prevail."

Published Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:28 AM by christinetatum
Filed Under:

Comments

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:08 AM by Karen Heriot
Technology is blurring the lines between professions. I am a teacher with an extremely sophisticated understanding of how the groups within the "education system" function. I am also far more attuned to the currents and research on the teaching learning process. The local newspaper's education reporter is there to "do a job" while merely repeating what one group or another tell him. I am one of the people who want to start a web based news service for the 4000 teachers in my district. It would cover topics that important to us, but not to a more general audience. If my work is adheres to professional journalistic standards, why should I not be considered a professional journalist?

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:07 AM by Justin
I don't see "certification" ever being constitutional and the idea embarks on a very dangerous slope. It doesn't seem like licensing, it is licensing and it is the antithesis of the First Amendment.

(meterologists = journalist? I wonder if many of them would think of it that way).

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:26 AM by ChristineTatum
Karen, I really appreciate your message. Here's what I think about your question:

By virtue of the fact that you ARE a teacher, you have demonstrated that you have a sophisticated understanding of the "currents and research on the teaching/learning process." You, in effect, already have certification that helps you build trust with the public as you practice journalism that is focused on the subject of education.

That education reporter, on the other hand, doesn't appear to have YOUR respect. As you note, he "merely repeat(s) what one group or another tell(s) him." Perhaps, if that journalist were to take a professionally administered exam -- something really challenging and developed with input from highly trained educators -- that would allow him to demonstrate his command of the subject matter in a far more tangible way.

And you could also think of it this way: What if you wanted to practice journalism focused on medicine? You might know a lot about education -- but that doesn't mean you have a command of epidemiology or the important elements of the scientific method and healthcare economics. Perhaps proof that you took the time to study the subject extensively and demonstrate the same "extremely sophisticated understanding" you have of education would win you greater trust with medical professionals in your community.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:29 AM by Christine Tatum
Meteorologists do not equal journalists, Justin. But are there a number of very talented broadcast journalists who have taken the time to state publicly -- and with little initials after their names -- that they have a command of the subject matter about which they're informing the public? Yup.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:34 AM by Christine Tatum
Justin also raises an interesting question about the constitutionality of certification. I'm going to consult with a media lawyer or two about this and post their responses ... But right now, I don't understand how certification would violate the constitutional right of a free press. Again, we're not talking about government-administered exams. We're talking about exams developed by, and administered by, journalists. As Meyer wrote, "Those of us who practice or teach journalism at ground level will make progress at greater speed and certainty if we also organize to reform ourselves."

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:11 PM by Robert Leger
People I respect greatly have advocated this idea for years. It doesn't run into First Amendment concerns as long as it is privately developed and administered, and especially not if it evolves into something that says, "hey, this person did a little more than the average journalist."

But I haven't yet become an advocate myself, for several reasons:
-- Once UNC or SPJ or ASNE or whoever develops a certification program, it becomes too easy for the government to adapt that to its definition of who is a journalist for access or fee-waiver purposes. There is the threat of it becoming a de facto license.
-- I don't buy that the public would see any difference between a certified or uncertified journalists. A Pulitzer Prize today is the height of certification that someone is a fine journalist, but winners face the same skeptics and disbelievers as any rookie reporter. And if memory serves, didn't Jayson Blair attend an ethics program, leaving it with an implicit certification that he understood ethical journalism? Fat lot of good that did.

The changing times confront journalism with many challenges. But I still think that actions speak louder than certificates. If your reporting is professional, if it is trustworthy, if it takes no short cuts, readers will recognize its quality. Our push ought to be -- as it has for many years -- a push for greater professionalism among all who call themselves journalists. We don't need the distraction of certificates.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:46 PM by Christine Tatum
VERY interesting, Robert! Thanks SO much for that perspective. You're always filled with great insight!

I agree that actions, ultimately, speak louder than certificates. But surely action in the form of having taken the time to demonstrate command of specific subject matter should count for something.

Editors have never said anything critical -- or even remotely scoffed -- when I have presented certificates earned from local language institutes that have evaluated my fluency in Spanish conversation. They have instead used those certificates as grounds to send me on special assignments.

I'm also not sure a certificate signifies anything other than that a journo knows his or her subject matter well. It doesn't get at the heart of who is or isn't a journalist, which is, indeed, a discussion lawmakers like to have.

I sense that we both have only anecdotal information and supposition to go on -- so maybe a more formal survey (paging Professor Meyer, who is a pioneer in "precision journalism," i.e. "know thy statistics") would be helpful to inform the debate.

I also wonder what SPJ leaders will think when -- and I do think it's a matter of when --another journalism-advocacy organization champions this effort ... Robert, as a former national SPJ prez, surely you've got some ideas about that?!

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:06 PM by Christine Tatum
And of course -- as he typically manages -- Robert got me thinking about another angle to all of this.

Could it be that news organizations do a REALLY BAD job of making clear to the general public the depth of training reporters on staff do have? We all know our favorite TV station's weather forecaster has that meteorology degree because the station tells us all the time. But newspapers haven't honked similar horns -- and perhaps it's time they did. I DO think the general public would be impressed to know that its information is delivered by highly knowledgable folks.

The Denver Post, for example, has two lawyers on staff who have covered, or are covering, courts. The science writer has a PhD. There are MANY master's degrees walking around this joint. But you'd never know it unless you asked any of these folks. You certainly won't find mention of their specialized training in the newspaper.

Maybe some new and noble marketing would help build more respect and trust?

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:28 PM by Christine Tatum
I received this message today from Professor Meyer:

Here's a link to a review of Scott Gant's book, We're All Journalists Now. He argues that journalism is becoming an activity, not a profession.

And he's pretty convincing. And it would follow from his argument that we can either become indistinguishable from the mass of activity or figure out some way to stand apart and above it.

University of Missouri Press has just published a collection of essays (that I edited) by William F. Woo, who was the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and forced out of his job for his stubborn allegiance to professional values. Neither should we go gentle into that good night.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:39 PM by Martin L. Cahn
One of the things I picked up on immediately at the beginning of you discussion was this:

"...if journalists who are formally trained and who make their primary living by working in the news business..."

I've been in the business seven years. I've risen from staff reporter to senior editor (read: assistant editor). I've won some awards. I've attended a few workshops (including the SPJ-sponsored Narrative Workshop a few weeks back).

But I never attended journalism school. (And I think I had at least one former staffer who felt I was someone who didn't belong because of that.)

I was a radio DJ, etc., for 14 years, during which I earned a bachelors in broadcasting with, of course, an emphasis on radio. I later earned a masters in organizational communication.

So, am I a professional journalist, or merely a talented writer with a couple of degrees who happened to get hired by a newspaper?

Perhaps that sentence should have read "formally trained and/or who make their primary living by working in the news business."

I think this all speaks to what really makes a journalist.

Dictionary.com lists "journalism" as "the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business" as its first definition.

The second is merely the "press;" the third speaks to the course of study that prepares students to be journalists.

The fourth? You'll love this:

"Writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing."

(Gee, thanks.)

Anyway, I'll stick with the first regarding the "profession" of journalism. Of course, "broadcasting" in that definition should really include "publishing," including online. And that, I think, would help the definition of who is a journalist to include online-only members of the craft.

The question of who then gets down to that of individual bloggers and the like "versus" those who work for organizations like (I suspect) most of us reading this do.

That makes me think of freelancers in the print and broadcast worlds. Aren't they professional journalists, too? They aren't necessarily working for "an" organization. Like bloggers, some may or may not be getting paid for their work. Some of them may self-publish their work (although I would think that would now be mostly online).

Mind you, I'm not making judgments here; I'm posing questions.

I consider myself a professional journalist, despite the non-J-school education and on-the-job training. I have a state press association card with me at almost all times because I never know when I'm going to have cover a story.

Do I know all the "rules" journalism that those staffers on my team who went to J-school learned? No, probably not. Does that make me less of a journalist? I don't think so.

Do I want every Tom, Dick and Jane blogger, etc., to be considered a professional journalist? No, I don't. For one thing, there's far too many of them. Citizens journalists are that: citizens who happen to be journaling, online for the most part, about their community and their interests. Citizen journalism may be where things end up, but I think it'll be more of a bigger piece of the larger pie that is "journalism," rather than replacing it entirely.

But that doesn't mean I want to be "certified" as a professional journalism beyond my press card and byline. It is, as Justin pointed out, a dangerous slope to get on. I also agree with Mr. Leger that the average reader doesn't really care if I won first place for spot news earlier this year. If they care about me at all, it's about whether I wrote well, treated the subjects (sometimes themselves) of the piece fairly and left my opinions to my weekly column.

That, to me, is being a professional journalist.

But I shouldn't need a piece of paper to say so: my articles should do that for me.

Martin L. Cahn, Senior Editor
The Chronicle-Independent
Camden, SC

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Wednesday, August 01, 2007 1:58 AM by Christine Tatum
Thanks for the perspective, Martin!

Yes, I should have been clearer: "formal training" to me doesn't necessarily mean one has a degree in journalism. Formal training also comes from time spent working in a newsroom.

I also think it's really easy -- thanks again to my lack of clarity -- to debate matters not at the heart of what I'd like to know.

I'm focused on certification that would by no means declare someone a journalist -- or even a "professional journalist." That's a bunch of bunk I think just about everyone agrees with. I do wonder, however, why journalists have such a hard time with the concept of taking an exam that would help them demonstrate their command of the subject matter they cover.

Journalists with MBAs, law degrees and plenty of other graduate degrees don't seem to have much trouble tossing that information on their resumes. They certainly believe their expertise helps the quality of their work. As I stated in a previous post, editors have certainly appreciated the certificates I can present them pertaining to my fluency in Spanish.

Robert and I don't have anything other than anecdotal information and supposition to go on when it comes to declaring that the public would or wouldn't care to know a little more about the journalists who deliver their news. I'd LOVE to see a scientific survey conducted so that we could know with greater certainty what the public really does think ...

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:51 AM by Martin L. Cahn
Christine:

Yes, I did realize you weren't necessarily, yourselves, advocating something that would purport to declare someone a journalist.

The exam idea, while interesting, still speaks to me of testing someone who may or may not have a set of knowledge deemed "standard" by whatever group comes up with the certification.

For example, what would I test look like for someone like me that covers a) the city of Camden, SC, b) health care, primarily from the perspective of the county's public hospital, c) crime and the courts and d) historic preservation (an offshoot of my city beat due to our being the oldest inland city in the state)?

Should I be tested on my knowledge of the local specifics, i.e., what's going on, who to contact, etc.? Or should I be held to a national standard of covering those topics in a more general stance?

Please understand, I do wish there could be some way to let the public, elected officials and others we have to do with that we are the so-called "legitimate" members of the press. (Although, as I think we're all pointing out, that definition needs massive changing and may be moot.) But I think we'd have to be real careful going about creating tests. They'd either have to be so individually tailored as to be rendered silly, or so broad as to become useless.

On the other hand, it might be kind of fun to see how well we'd all do, wouldn't it?

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Wednesday, August 01, 2007 3:31 PM by Phil Meyer
  The objections stated here to a broad certification program for journalists are sound insofar as they are based on the institutional arrangements we have today. But those institutions are crumbling before our eyes.
   Readers trust us because they trust the institutions that employ us. They know that the editor and/or publisher won't put up with lying and incompetent reporters. The institutions are like feudal castles, providing protection and trust (in the form of a brand name)so that we serfs can do the important work. But what happens when the vandals storm the gates, the castle walls fall, and everyone is a journalist?
   In that situation, where everyone, skilled or unskilled, public-serving or self-serving, has equal access to the audience, the truth tellers are going to have to find a way to brand themselves. I'm not sure that we can count on the Miltonian self-righting principle for truth to emerge on its own. The lies move too fast now.
    Certification by a professional association is a kind of branding, e.g. Realtors, CPA's, etc. But we should try this out in the narrowest possible way by setting up certification programs for journalistic sub-specialties. It would never be, couldn't be a requirement for practicing the profession. It's just a way of branding specified levels of competence and morality.
    Our old values were based on an environment in which information was scarce. Now information is in unfathomable surplus. For the truth-tellers to emerge from the noise and confusion, we will need a way to make them visible. We will need it sooner than you think.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:58 PM by Carole McNall
This question comes from my training as a lawyer as well as my training as a journalist: would the existence of a certification program provide a weapon to be used against a media organization?

Here's an example of what I mean: imagine there is a certification program covering education reporters. Imagine that my organization does not have a certified education reporter, but we do have a very good reporter who has covered education for a long time. Unfortunately, she writes a story that prompts a libel suit. The opposing lawyer might well argue the organization is negligent (or even guilty of actual malice) because they did not use a certified reporter for the story.

I wish I could tell you I'm hallucinating on that one, but I'd bet it would happen.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:36 AM by Christine Tatum
Yes, lawyers so wily are something to consider. Thanks for this wily thinking of yours, Carole. We need you keeping us on our toes!

And yes, I'm sure a person's certificate -- or lack thereof -- always would be something to yammer about in a courtroom. But I'd love to read why a certificate would pose any more liability than a graduate degree. There's nothing stopping lawyers from trying to argue that a news organization is negligent or guilty of actual malice because it didn't use a journalist with an MBA to write about business or a journalist with a degree in law to cover courts ...

Or am I the one who's hallucinating?! :)

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:40 PM by Jim Brumm
Don't we already have many forms of certification? When Reuters (an example where I know the details) hires a reporter, there's a six week trial period under the Newspaper Guild contract. If it is completed successfully, that person gets a letter from Reuters saying their hired as a journalist. And later, when they're promoted, the individual gets another letter saying they are a correspondent. Aren't those letters certification?
As to making use of this information, that's up to the publication. Many trade publications print a short work bio on each staff member, explaining their value to the reader.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Thursday, August 02, 2007 7:02 PM by Phil Meyer
 When I was helping ASNE with an ethics project a couple of decades ago, I encountered more than one editor who said his or her newspaper's lawyers wouldn't let them establish a code of ethics because it could be used against them to prove malice. Having no rules at all is safest. My response then, and would be now, that morality trumps law. And many newspapers agree because they do have their own codes of ethics. But it is something to worry about.

  The Reuters job classifications -- and any medium's job titles -- are indeed forms of certification. What I want is for us working stiffs to take control with our own system.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:15 PM by Don Snedecor
The Society of Professional Journalists would seem an appropriate organization to offer "board certification," in similiar fashion to American Meteorlogical Society's certification of TV weather reporters (mentioned in the example). But I think that specialists--such as medical reporters (mentioned in the example) motion picture and television critics, garden writers, travel writers, music critics, et al might be the easiest place to start.  

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Friday, August 03, 2007 10:50 AM by Wendy Garofoli
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Philip Meyer was advocating that media institutions require a certification to hire journalists to their team. I believe he meant certification to be a source of continuing education, and a means to obtain updated skills to stay abreast of trends in the industry. He compares journalism certification those being offered for the computer industry. Employers don't require computer technicians to have certifications, however, seeing that a prospective candidate has that certification can verify that he or she has completed learning on a specific trade.

I also see certification as an attractive alternative to obtaining a master's degree. Many journalists (myself included) can't afford to take time off from work AND absorb the great costs associated. While I'd love to attend a J-school for graduate study, I've been told by many professionals that a master's degree won't necessarily matter more than experience. Having a journalism certification (for online, print, magazine publishing, or broadcast) would immediately demonstrate that I've completed a specific field of study while continuing to learn from the experience of being in the field.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Friday, August 03, 2007 11:28 AM by Duane A. Rasmussen
After over 60 years of connection with the newspaper profession and 15 years (10 years chair)on the FOI Committee of the Minnesota Newspaper Association, I have some very clear (to me) ideas on the issue.

In Minnesota this issue came up from time to time in regard to any open meeting or open record question.  The answer is quite simple.  There should be no law, rule or regulation that pertains solely to our profession.  The First Amendment clearly pertains to each and every American in their individual or collective pursuit of information. This might include a reporter from the Wall Street Journal, the Podunk Weekly, the neighborhood flyer or the individual citizen who just wants more information.

Definitely no certification or licensing.  That would be a giant step toward the defeat of the First Amendment.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM by Yvonne Martin
When I became a member of SPJ back in the '80s you had to be a working journalist.  I noticed recently that people in advertising, PR, and others are now eligible for membership.  When did this change and why?

Yvonne Martin

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Saturday, August 04, 2007 10:56 AM by Jill Miller Zimon
See also www.jillmillerzimon.com.

I see great parallels between defining who is a journalist with SCOTUS's defining obscenity (I'll know it when I see it) and trusting the readers.  The quality of what we write and the integrity of those who publish our work (ourselves included) combine to inform the reader as to the legitimacy of the journalism they are consuming.

Right now, we're witnessing the expansion of who gathers news and disseminates it and the expansion of the concept of what exactly is news - both at the hands of the consumer as much as those of us who provide the information.  It is antithetical to do what essentially would be swimming against an enormous, inevitable and unstoppable sea change by standing in the cement with a specific definition because it will, by its being defined, fail to reflect the mutability of the very concept you're wanting to nail down.

# Credentials for "professional" journalists

Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:22 AM by The Editor's Log
I'm convinced that most readers don't pay attention to bylines. They don't care who writes a story. They care that it's in the paper. They believe it to be true, generally speaking, because it is in a paper they believe...

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:41 PM by Christine Tatum
For what it's worth: Professor Meyer delivered a compelling lecture Saturday that covered some of the biggest concepts tackled in his book.

And yes, he also made a case for certification.

I was struck by the reaction from those in the room (about 75 journalists from across North Carolina). Sure, there were skeptics, but they were just that. I didn't hear anyone say this was a terrible idea on its face. Just about everyone with whom I spoke said it's an idea worthy of more research. A couple of people piped right up to say that they think certification would be fabulous for many of the reasons Wendy Garofoli states. Four other journos nearly tackled me in the hallway to let me know that they loved -- and I do mean LOVED -- the idea.

And then there was an editor -- John Robinson, who leads the News & Record in Greensboro, N.C. -- who said that a certificate would matter to him about "25 percent."

"So, all things being equal (in job candidates), this would be a tie-breaker?" Professor Meyer asked.

"This would be a tie-breaker," Robinson said.

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Monday, August 06, 2007 12:28 AM by Jill
I've left this comment of yours over at John's blog and thought you might want to read what he wrote over there too in case you hadn't yet.


http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2007/08/im_convinced_th.html

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:43 PM by christinetatum
Thanks so much for including the link to JR's blog, Jill! Really appreciate it.

Yes, I fully understand the potential pitfalls here and enjoyed reading more from readers who have responded to JR on the matter. Meyer's thoughts are, indeed, controversial, and I raised them within SPJ circles only to get people thinking -- and talking.

Regardless of whether journalists opt for certificates or plaid wallpaper, I think it would be smart for us to explore new ways in which we could build trust with the communities we serve. One could argue that accurate and fair journalism is, quite simply, enough. Here, again, is what Meyer said about that:

"Readers trust us because they trust the institutions that employ us. They know that the editor and/or publisher won't put up with lying and incompetent reporters. The institutions are like feudal castles, providing protection and trust (in the form of a brand name)so that we serfs can do the important work. But what happens when the vandals storm the gates, the castle walls fall, and everyone is a journalist?

"In that situation, where everyone, skilled or unskilled, public-serving or self-serving, has equal access to the audience, the truth tellers are going to have to find a way to brand themselves. I'm not sure that we can count on the Miltonian self-righting principle for truth to emerge on its own. The lies move too fast now."

So, is Meyer wrong to think that truth tellers even will have to find a way to brand themselves?


# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:38 AM by Jill
Thanks for your response.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know many of the bylines I trust or don't trust and then also filter what they write through whomever is the publisher.  I'm not sure why branding via a larger entity such as a publisher is any different from branding as an individual writer - through a blog or any other self-publishing tool - a newsletter, let's say.

Everyone filters - one way or the other.  The issue I would think is transparency for whomever the filter is: the reader needs to know who is the filter and what filter they're using.  Then, the reader can choose to ignore or accept what they're reading.

I am a freelancer, so I guess I don't really see the need to contain the issue of truth-teller to entities with publishers and separately employed editors (separate from the writers).

# re: Journalists and certification: An idea whose time has come?

Thursday, August 09, 2007 9:08 PM by Steven Kalb
Unfortunately, those who govern may have gone a long way to defining "who" is (and thereby who is NOT) a journalist in their eyes. This is a discussion that the Connecticut Pro chapter has hoped would take place at the National Convention as a START. Note the following:

House panel approves legal shield for bloggers
By ZDNN Staff
Published on ZDNet News: August 01, 2007, 1:24 PM PDT

A correction was made to this story. Read below for details.
WASHINGTON--A congressional panel on Wednesday voted, against the Bush administration's wishes, to shield journalists including advertising-supported bloggers from having to reveal their confidential sources in many situations.
By a voice vote only after politicians spent nearly two hours airing various misgivings, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved an amended version of the Free Flow of Information Act. Chiefly sponsored by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), it proposes protection for a wider set of people than previous years' versions.
"Today, we are reclaiming one of the most fundamental principles enshrined by the founding fathers in the First Amendment of the Constitution," Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said before the vote.
In response to concerns raised by the Bush administration and other politicians, the revised bill attempts to exclude the "casual blogger" from reaping those benefits by stipulating the protections apply only to those who derive "financial gain or livelihood" from the journalistic activity, Boucher said Wednesday. That broad rule could, however, include part-time writers who receive even a trickle of revenue from Google Ads or Blogads.com.
The bill defines the practice of journalism as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."
"To extend the shield beyond (those who gain financial benefit) would create an avenue for virtually anyone to avoid compelled testimony by simply creating a blog that contains the information in question," which is not the bill's intent, Boucher said.
But in an age in which it's relatively easy and inexpensive to slap advertisements on blogs and meet the "financial gain" standard, several politicians questioned on Wednesday whether that language will make much of a difference. Anyone "could start a blog and request advertising on that blog, and whether they get it or not, would be considered a journalist under this bill," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said.
Such a definition "would potentially encompass millions of people who blog or change the manner in which they blog (to gain the privilege)," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), adding that the shield is "far too broad and far too easily gained for me to support that language."
Both Boucher and Pence said they sympathized with those complaints and planned to work on changing the definition further before the bill goes to a vote in the full House. Conyers proposed assembling a "working group" to work out the differences. The bill's supporters had previously resolved to leave it up to the courts to refine the journalist definition as necessary, rather than running the risk of excluding certain people by narrowing the scope beforehand.
Some form of "reporter's privilege," either through laws or court decisions, already exists in 49 states and the District of Columbia, and major news organizations support the federal bill. But the Bush administration has continually opposed passage of such a measure, arguing the most recent House effort's approach is so sweeping that it could imperil national security and federal criminal investigations. Currently there is no federal shield law.
To be sure, immunity under the federal bill would not be absolute, and the Boucher amendment adopted Wednesday added additional exceptions.
In the approved version, people eligible for the privilege could be forced to reveal their sources when it's necessary to prevent an "act of terrorism" against the United States or its allies, when it's clear that crimes have been committed, when "significant specified harm" to national security could occur, or when trade secrets, nonpublic personal information or health records are compromised in violation of existing laws. The person seeking to compel the journalist to turn over the information would also have to exhaust "all reasonable alternative sources." Some politicians said even more exceptions are needed.
Boucher's amendment also specified that "foreign powers or agents of foreign powers"--including a government-controlled newspaper--and any "foreign terrorist organization" designated by the Secretary of State cannot receive the protections.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee's ranking member, said he intended to oppose the bill on Wednesday because he said he believed the amended bill will still cause the Justice Department to "be constrained as it goes about the business of conducting investigations and prosecuting criminals."
Smith nevertheless scolded what he perceived as the Justice Department's lack of cooperation with the committee on the bill. The agency "should do more than just complain, it should negotiate in good faith and provide the committee with language that addresses its concerns," he said.
With Congress scheduled to depart for its summer recess at week's end and lingering disagreements over the bill's approach, it's unclear whether the bill will move ahead anytime soon. The House bill's Senate counterpart has not yet gotten any attention this year.
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
Anonymous comments are disabled. Please log in or create an account to comment on this article.