Licensed To Commit Journalism

     Should there be a license for journalists? And I don’t mean, as some wags might suggest, a hunting license for journalists. I mean an independent agency that certifies a reporter as being trained and ethical. Should journalists have something similar to state Bar associations or medical boards?

     The argument in favor of such licensing is that the "blogosphere" is wholly unaccountable. If the local paper prints a libelous screed against you, there is at least a brick and mortar building to deliver the subpoena to. Newspapers assumed the responsibility of screening out unethical reporters if for no other reason than to avoid court costs. Now, anyone with access to a computer can write "news articles" and publish them on the world wide web.

     The licensing would, of course, be mostly for the consumer’s benefit. There has been an explosion of news sites in just the last few years and blog hosting sites can make even the most uninformed writer at least look professional. It can be difficult enough sorting through the big, legacy media sites like Sacbee.com or CNN without ever getting to bloggers. Blogs are relevant however and even professional journalists no longer dismiss blogs as the last refuge of cranks and amateurs. In fact, most professional journalists maintain their own blogs now. But that’s the point: how does the reader separate the good journalism from the cranks and the amateurs?

     Licensing would also help assuage the bruised egos of reporters who are tired of being lumped in with people who blog about their cats and guys who post 20 misspelling-filled pages worth of theories about the influence of the Freemasons in America. The fact of the matter is that "journalist" has become too big of a job category. It’s the same problem nurses face. A "nurse" could be anyone from the highschool dropout who empties the bedpans to the surgeon’s assistant who has almost as much medical school as the doctor under his or her belt.

     The argument against a license is that, unlike a doctor or lawyer, being a journalist doesn’t carry any special privileges. A journalist doesn’t have any more access to public records than any other citizen and no one is arguing that they should. It’s unfair to add another financial burden (applicants pay to take the Bar exam) to people seeking employment in an already struggling industry.

     There is also the question of who this sanctioning board would be comprised of and the inherent problem of "policing the police." Will a stodgy board prevent young talent from being seen? Will an unscrupulous board accept bribes to issue licenses to the staff of The National Inquirer? Will there be a reporter bold enough to risk his license by investigating the board?

     For some reason, the idea of a sanctioning board for journalists rings a sour note. Despite the measure of credibility a license theoretically would bring, I think most journalists would try to avoid getting it. Reporters tend to naturally be anti-establishment types; it’s why they went to J-school. They’re better suited to scrutinizing and criticizing institutions than forming them. The idea of a license also feeds into the elitist attitude many reporters have toward feature writers. Who says writing about your cats isn’t legitimate? Jon Carroll does it all the time and he’s published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

     I think reporters will have to build their credibility the old-fashioned way: by being credible. Writing with honesty and integrity, whether covering your cats or your nation’s government, is the path to legitimacy as a journalist.