Want it?

On Monday we discussed the journalist’s role in society. The question of the day: Why journalists deserve the privilege of disseminating information to others?

The answer: Because we’re the ones that want it.

Without a system of credentials, a Hippocratic Oath or some sort of omnipotent association watching over us, that’s the best answer I think anyone can come up with. And given the history of our profession (or occupation or plain-ol’ job), that answer is acceptable – even though no Walter Williams-fearing reporter would ever accept it from a source. Simplistically, the American free press, the First Amendment, was created just because our Founding Fathers wanted it there. Some even thought they needed it. Practically, that answer makes sense: If you’re willing to live on a salary that rivals poverty-level, work 60-70 hours a week, get regularly reamed out by sources, editors, readers… well, that all has to be worth something (right?). We’re granted this privilege because we choose to make the necessary sacrifices.

In the short run, the simplistic and practical reasons make sense.

In the long run, though, “wanting it” is no longer good enough. It has always been that anyone can want the privilege, but now times have changed so that anyone can disseminate information, true, false or opinionated. Which brings us back to the original question. Without anything besides a strong, idealistic desire to inform the public, why do journalists worthy of such a special right?

Unless the industry makes some sweeping changes, I’d say journalists aren’t deserving. Now it’s about wanting to be worthy, not just wanting the power, and it’s our task to make ourselves deserving again. And talk about a daunting task. The notion of a free press, an open forum for discourse, make regulation challenging. Can you create credentials when doing so would discriminatory? A college degree, for instance, requires a certain influx of money.

News councils seem to be a better option. If we wish to be watchdogs, it’s only fair that we be willing to be watched ourselves. That’s a main difference between bloggers and journalists anyway: Reporters have an editor looming over their shoulders, they can get fired or promoted for their work; bloggers are often their own boss. News council oversight would explicitly separate professional journalists, giving readers a reason to trust the news, a reason to award reporters the privilege of informing. From the reporter’s standpoint, news councils could provide more concrete methods for determining ethical decisions. It may also make mistakes more tolerable. From my own observation, reporters are often afraid to disclose mistakes or missteps (especially in the foggy areas of technology) because doing so usually means losing his or her job. News council assessments could come up with appropriate penances, rather than just firing the reporter because the readership is calling for his or her head.

That said, news councils still might not be the best answer. I’d say they’re a good start, though, and, more importantly, a necessary start. In such a tech-savvy world, this conversation is already old. If journalists want to be privileged, they have to prove they are worthy. And the only way to do that is by taking real action.