Codes of conduct and ethics *do* exist for journalists. And, as should be
the case with most such standards, compliance is voluntary in the United
States.
An American journalism colleague of mine studied and wrote her thesis in
England, where she contrasted the practice of journalism with that of the
U.S. As a specific example she chose an incident several years ago in
England in which the government censored news reports about tainted milk,
which led to untold numbers of uninformed persons being poisoned - all in
the interest of protecting the dairy industry, the economy and, of course,
the public from "panic".
Sound familiar?
If anyone wonders why England (and English-influenced Australia and New
Zealand) seems so fond of sensationalist tabloid journalism, it is because
of the prior restraint imposed by the government on the reporting of hard
news. And to a lesser yet equally disturbing extent in the United States,
we see that when a government entity makes it impossible for journalists to
cover the news, they will cover crap; and when journalists are fed lies by
"sources" they will report lies.
Applying legalistic strictures to exercising the rights *all individuals*
hold under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is antithetical to the
very notion of a free press.
In fact, we already labor under restrictions that grind at the very
foundation of the 1st Amendment. Unless one works for a known
news-gathering organization it can be difficult if not impossible to gain
access to cover events or to obtain information of newsworthy significance.
Yet we cannot depend on the major news media to represent our interests.
Their reporting is typically shallow, uninformed and pandering to emotion
rather than intellect.
Considering that the web has replaced the journals and pamphleteers of past
decades and centuries, it is essential that *individuals* - not Reporters
and Photographers (emphasis deliberate) who are Certified and/or Licensed in
the State - be given equal access. If any legally enforceable certification
or licensing procedure was required, how would it be enforced? Against what
type of "news media"? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? What about book writers?
Historians? Novelists writing fictitious accounts obviously based on a true
event?
The slope is never made slippery by liberty. It is always made treacherous
by restraints on liberty.
I shudder to think what might have befallen this nation had early
journalists, pamphleteers and publishers been burdened with such
restrictions. One hopes that they would have ignored such constraints, as
we should do if any effort is ever made to place the 1st Amendment in one of
those iron-clad lockboxes we heard so much about last year.
Lex
===
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:20:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Ray Moth <ray_moth@xxxxxxxxx>
...I don't see why codes of conduct and professional ethics can't be
brought into the picture where journalism is concerned, such as exist
for other important professions like law, law enforcement, education,
accountancy and medicine. The press like to project themselves as
guardians of society but who's going to guard society against the
press?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|