journalism licensing across world

In 2005, the White House admitted the first blogger to the White House press corps. It was a revolutionary step in acknowledging a new field of journalism and granting authority to a new type of journalist. However, the blogger admitted to the press corps previously worked closely with John McCain on his political campaigns. This fact was not reported by many large news agencies, including the New York Times.

The position of White House correspondent is a coveted among many journalists. Journalists chosen for this beat and granted White House credentials are assumed by the public to be highly qualified and able to report without a bias. With such a vast arena of “journalists,” however, who is able to determine which are qualified for access to major sporting events, the White House and other restricted newsworthy forums and information outlets?

Among professional journalism organizations and politicians, there is debate concerning the possible licensing of journalists. In this matter, certain qualifications would be required for a journalist to receive a license and there would be penalties for unethical behavior (such as the suspension of a person’s license). This debate is not only being held in the United States, but in countries all over the globe. Licenses would help determine which journalists are credible and should be allowed in restricted events.

An op-ed piece published in The Statesman, the oldest newspaper in Ghana, argues in favor of licensing journalists due to a recent influx of unethical behavior and unprofessional practices in the field. In Ghana, there is a professional organization for journalism, recognized in the country’s constitution, which lists expectations for journalists and accepted practices. Journalists, however, are not living up to these expectations and the organization – the GJA – has no power to penalize journalists who do not abide by its standards. The op-ed piece argues that the GJA should license journalists who meet certain qualifications, and without this certification, a journalist cannot be employed. Furthermore, a journalist’s license may be suspended for unprofessional behavior.

Restricting journalism employment to only licensed journalists, however, would not be practical in the United States. There are too many modes for journalism, such as blogs, newspapers, magazine, television and radio, to restrict their employment methods. Underground news outlets would develop. This would also violate the First Amendment of the Constitution since it would, in effect, restrict freedom of the press.
In Venezuela, the Supreme Court ruled that licensing journalists is incompatible with the Western Hemisphere’s convention on human rights. This is in regard to Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which says that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression” and that the “exercise of that right shall not be subject to prior censorship” – a clause very similar to the U.S. First Amendment. Furthermore, licensing “would contain restrictions to freedom of expression that are not authorized” by the American Convention, and “would consequently be in violation not only of the right of each individual to seek and impart information and ideas through any means of his choice, but also the right of the public at large to receive information without any interference.”
There are, however, methods in which licensing could benefit the practice of journalism in the United States. Licensing could be a method for external agencies to easily determine who, out of a group of journalists, is credible and therefore qualified to report on an event. For instance, when the NCAA chooses journalists to be admitted to the NCAA basketball championship tournament, they do not have time to review the credentials of all applying journalists. Many times the NCAA and other agencies will choose based on name recognition. If journalists were licensed, then the NCAA would know a journalist is credible and not John Doe from Johnny’s Weekly Babbles Web site. This would allow for the NCAA to diversify by choosing journalists whose name they do not know, but can be confident it their credibility since he/she is licensed. Therefore licensing would be a method of weeding out unqualified journalists. But there is still the question of how to determine who receives a license?

Aside from basic writing and editing skills, determining the legitimacy of a journalist is subjective. Some of the best journalists do not have a formal education in the profession, therefore if education was used as a determining factor the profession could suffer. Secondly, if a test is used, what kind of questions would be presented? Even journalists who break or bend ethical boundaries usually know the right thing to do, they just choose to ignore it. Therefore their answers to ethical questions on a test could present the person as ethically sound and credible.
Since there is no plausible method for licensing journalists without restricting individuals that are qualified or making the licensing requirements so easy that anyone could receive them, it is not practical for the United States. There already exist journalism agencies that recognize credible news outlets, such as the Missouri Press Organization. Such organizations may be used to weed out who is credible and who is not without the complications that licensing of individual journalists stirs up. Therefore although licensing would have its benefits, it is not plausible for the United States based on our freedom of speech laws and the numerous outlets of information and journalists practicing in this country.