no need for a news council

Something that sets journalism apart from other professions is the lack of a licensing board, or formal disciplinary procedures. The “Amish” method of shunning journalists who cross the line is what prevails today. News councils have been proposed and formed as a way to put professional checks on journalists ethical missteps. One of these was formed in Minnesota in the 1960s.
The Minnesota News Council is made up of 24 volunteers and a chairperson. Twelve are from the public, and the rest represent the media. Media members do not represent specific news outlets when they sit on the board. According to the Minnesota news council website, it was formed in response to the dwindling faith the public had in the media. The council fields complaints and rules on cases where journalists are accused of abusing the public trust. The Council has received more than 1,680 complaints since 1971. Of these, about half have been upheld and half have been rejected. This seems to be a costly and time consuming way to find that only half of complaints filed are legitimate.
In the March/April 1997 Columbia Journalism Review, Mike Wallace argued for news councils, saying that there is an anger toward the press grown out of journalists’ arrogance and dismissal of the public. He suggested that it was “irresponsible: for a news organization to “refuse to play” if a complaint was lodged against them with a news council. It has been 10 years and news councils have not caught on. Minnesota is one of the more well known ones, where anyone can apply for membership.
There are two very good reasons that news councils have not become the norm. These are: there are legal resources for misbehaving journalists, and shunning is pretty powerful. You can argue that the reason there is no formal, professional disciplinary procedures is that when journalists do something wrong, they are usually facing a libel suit. Because the protection of the press is enshrined in Constitutional law, it is appropriate for the punishment of journalists to happen in the courts. Discipline of journalists by some in-house, professional standard is unnecessary. There’s nothing wrong with the current double threat of legal action and professional shaming. News councils would only fill a need that the law and the profession have already taken care of. Shunning is particularly effective because it is a powerful threat. What purpose does being found ethically guilty by a news council serve when you have been blacklisted for employment? Moreover, there are much better ways to regain public trust, namely by being better champions of the public good. Fulfilling this role makes news councils obsolete in their mission and procedures.