A Michigan lawmaker wants to license reporters to ensure they're credible and vet them for good moral character.'
Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets--traditional, online and citizen generated--and an even greater amount misinformation.
Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,' he said.
He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don't know what they're talking about and they're working for publications he's never heard of, so he wants to install a process that'll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.
We have to be able to get good information,' he said. We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.'
Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized with disgruntles politicians going after reporters who don't paint them in a positive light. They say that adding members of the so-called fourth estate to the list of government regulated occupations would likely be found unconstitutional.
It's misguided and it's never going to fly,' said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert, the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.
The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the state legislature's Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.
It's a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all' said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.
I've not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it's usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.'
According to the bill, reporters must provide the licensing board proof of:
--"Good moral character' and demonstrate they have industry ethics standards acceptable to the board.'
--Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
--Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
--Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
--Three or more writing samples.
Reporters will also have to pay an application and registration fee.
The bill does not prevent reporters who are not licensed by the state from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.
Patterson conceded that he didn't actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He says he's winding down his two decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.
I would argue the first amendment feels otherwise,' said MacLaren. He's entitled to his thoughts. The first amendment protects those as well.'
What's the definition of a reporter? I haven't been able to find out? What's a reporter? What's a journalist?' Patterson said. I thought you had to have a degree in journalism but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.'
Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters' credentials, background and experience.
I'm talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,' Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.
The senator said that he feels that there's no way to tell who's a legitimate journalist and who's just rewriting other reporters' reporting and twisting facts.
He is right, the problem is How do I know where I'm getting my news from?'' said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate--non professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists--and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.
But even though McBride agreed with Patterson's concerns that people don't know which news outlets to trust she said the bill introducing government-licensed reporters is just a bad idea.
Plus, she said that governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process--and that these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.
I think that his concern is a legitimate one,' McBride said, But you're not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.'
#2
Dumbass is a Republican. Any idea who this would help, dumbass? Any idea on which side the sanctions, refusal to license, imprisonment for writing without a license would fall? Jeebus. I would just go for libel and slander reform
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/29/2010 18:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Here's an idea - how about any legislator who sponsors a law, which is passed and challenged through a final adverse decision by the SCOTUS, which such finding is that the law is unconstitutional, automatically forfeits their seat/instant recall re-election. Unless, such legislature, by 2/3 vote, overrides the automatic forfeiture effect of the SCOTUS, unless the SCOTUS by unanimous 9-0 vote overrides the override.
We apparently don't have enough protections from governmental assault and incompetence - time to add more barriers.
#4
Exactly right, Frank. Graduates of the major communard media mills and ojt programs, like Columbia and Mother Jones respectively, would be automatically vetted and unasailably licensed while upstarts and amateurs; that is, independent media, would be squashed.
#6
I don't think there were were any 'journalist's until someone made up the term to call a 'journalism' school. Before that they were 'reporters' or 'newsmen'.
Just another dumb-ass attempt to control the media.
ht to HA Any time a Clinton is involved, the first casualty is the truth
In a little-noticed passage Friday,
'little-noticed' is the new 'unexpected', according to Walter Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection ...
the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board's website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.
As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. And since the White House intended for Sestak to remain in his House seat, he would not have been eligible for the board after this November's elections, provided he was re-elected to the House.
The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, "At the time, I heard the words 'presidential board,' and that's all I heard...I heard 'presidential board,' and I think it was intel." In addition, the Times reported that "people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment" to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.
Did the White House not know that? The apparent contradiction is sure to create more questions from Republicans who want an independent investigation of the affair. Why would the White House -- normally pretty careful in such matters -- offer Sestak a job he couldn't take? Were there in fact other offers made to Sestak? So far, there has been little discussion of the fact that the Bauer statement said "options for executive branch service were raised with [Sestak]." The plural "options" certainly suggests that more than one job was presented to Sestak, but Sestak himself says his conversation with Clinton was very brief -- less than one minute. Whatever the case, if the White House intended Bauer's statement to put the Sestak issue to rest, it was probably mistaken.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/29/2010 09:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They picked the Man of Teflon just because he is immune to prying press
#2
So why would anyone think this guy would tell the truth? Oh, maybe the diehard anything-goes party loyal donks who don't really give a flip about the means; only the ends. File under sleezy Chicago-Arkansas politics.
#4
I dunno, kids, considering all that went on before with him, wouldn't it seem that by sending Bill Clinton to "feel out" someone, you're just begging for trouble?
Posted by: Mike ||
05/29/2010 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#1
I for one am getting a little tired of these phoney, staged, and manipulated photo-op propaganda sessions. With health care it was the Whitehouse white-jacketed doctors selling the BO health care plan. Were these actors also bussed in to play temporary doctors who weren't really doctors but they stayed in the local Holiday Inn Express the night before?
I am of the opinion that if the event is put on by the Whitehouse, don't trust it.
#2
well, at least these ACORN-esque workers only have a stick with a nail on the end to pick up trash and are not handling millions of dollars to buy votes. Still, it's a charade and amazing that BP and/or WH can concoct such a junior high project.
#6
@4: Probably going to happen anyway. BP said they've lost $930 million so far and climbing. They aren't any closer to plugging the leak either, and the best option is drilling another hole to relieve the other one. Which could take until AUGUST.
This is why BP did this for OBambi. Need to keep your Life-line (American Taxpayer) open.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/29/2010 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
So, what are we to take from this evasive behavior of Congressman Murphy? For one, he appears to be taking his cues from his commander-in-chief who has not had an open press conference in over a year.
Maybe Mr. Murphy believes he should just play "follow the leader" and dodge and weave public scrutiny in order that he can minimize the risk of having his record exposed. Second, and this was witnessed in the recent Langhorne debacle, a number of Democrats are even starting to question the worthiness of Patrick Murphy.
All of the Democrats in Pennsylvania 8, as the Congressman may soon find out, are not as far to the left as he may think. Furthermore, to the extent that President Obama's ratings continue to plummet, those in Congress who followed the president's policies and choice of legislative agenda may be finding that his coattails can bring disaffection from the voter base as well.
Finally, it appears that Congressman Murphy's evasiveness could spark a "blood in the water" response from Mike Fitzpatrick. To the extent that the GOP nominee can capitalize on this vulnerable aspect of Murphy's makeup, he may be able to generate an early edge in the election.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/29/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe Mr. Murphy believes he should just play "follow the leader" and dodge and weave public scrutiny in order that he can minimize the risk of having his record exposed.
Seems to me that organizations like moveon.org has been blackmailing liberals. The stick they use is to threaten to attack their funding and support. The price the politicians pay is to simply be more "progressive" than their natural tendencies up to the point that their newfound boneheadedness is deniable and/or not such a bad place to be because of safety in numbers mentality.
Three months before the massive BP oil spill erupted in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration proposed downsizing the Coast Guard national coordination center for oil spill responses, prompting its senior officers to warn that the agency's readiness for catastrophic events would be weakened.
That proposal is feeding a mounting debate over whether the federal government is able to regulate deep-sea oil extraction. Defense analysts and retired agency leaders question whether the Coast Guard -- which shares oversight of offshore drilling with the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service -- has the expertise and resources to keep pace with industry advances.
They certainly won't if you cut their coordination center ...
Accidents happen, "but what you're seeing here is the government is not properly set up to deal with this kind of issue," said Robbin Laird, a defense consultant who has worked on Coast Guard issues. "The idea that you would even think about getting rid of catastrophic environmental spill equipment or expertise at the Department of Homeland Security, are you kidding me?"
#2
Three months before the massive BP oil spill erupted in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration proposed downsizing the Coast Guard national coordination center for oil spill responses, prompting its senior officers to warn that the agency's readiness for catastrophic events would be weakened.
I was wondering why he magnanimously chose to "take full responsibility" instead of blaming it on W.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
