• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should you need a license to be a journalist?

Should you need a license to be a journalist?

  • Total voters
    62
The answer is no. Licensing press rights means someone in the government gets to choose who says what, how and when - ultimately leading to censorship of the press. Its unconstitutional and for good reason.

Bad/unverified "news" will get sorted out, people will post refuting evidence and take legal action if its libel or slander - just a matter of time.

Respectfully, HTTP
 
jamesrage said:
Should you need a license to be a journalist?
Yes
no
maybe/other


I wonder how many of these reporters spoke out against requiring a permit/license for 2nd amendment rights?I guess if they can require a permit/license in other words permission from the government to exercise one constitutional right then they can do the same for other constitutional rights too.

FOXNews.com - Michigan Considers Law to License Journalists
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, Journalists should be treated the same as gun owners

I will let the leftists ponder the meaning
 
TurtleDude said:
I agree, Journalists should be treated the same as gun owners

I will let the leftists ponder the meaning
Click to expand...

Owning a gun, and being able to express one's opinions are two completely different things.
 
Your Star said:
Owning a gun, and being able to express one's opinions are two completely different things.
Click to expand...


Owning a gun and being able to express one's own opinion are both US constitutionally protected rights in which the government is not supposed to infringe or prohibit. So if you support the government infringing or prohibiting on one right without a constitutional amendment then you support the government infringing on other rights without a constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I agree, Journalists should be treated the same as gun owners

I will let the leftists ponder the meaning
Click to expand...


I admit that I really love the idea of leftist getting a dose of their own medicine. But even though I am pretty sure that none of those scum spoke up when places like Chicago and New York enacted some of the most anti-2nd amendment laws in the country I will still support their right to free speech and freedom of the press.
 
Orion said:
Just because I am disagreeing with you does not make me off topic. I know and understand exactly what you are saying, but I believe you are wrong.



No it does not. Information does not inherently possess the ability to kill. News does not kill people. People kill people. When you start blaming the news for the choices of individuals, you open freedom of speech up to attack and restriction.



The proposed rule is a direct line to violating freedom of speech. It is unconstitutional and it should and will be shot down.
Click to expand...

And yet, somehow, your position changes when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Care to elaborate?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm a little curious -- what part of "Congress shall make no law" does this knuckleheaded Congressman (and anybody who didn't vote "no," for that matter) not understand?
Click to expand...

It was written 200ish years ago by white racist, sexist, slave owners.
It doesn't apply today. :lol:

(playing devils advocate)
 
jamesrage said:
I admit that I really love the idea of leftist getting a dose of their own medicine. But even though I am pretty sure that none of those scum spoke up when places like Chicago and New York enacted some of the most anti-2nd amendment laws in the country I will still support their right to free speech and freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

Supporting their right to free speech and freedom of the press is the same thing as supporting your right to free speech and freedom of the press.
 
Yeah, I think journalists should need a licence, with a view to keeping a record on how reputable they and the news bodies they represent are.
 
Mell said:
Yeah, I think journalists should need a licence, with a view to keeping a record on how reputable they and the news bodies they represent are.
Click to expand...

Who would have the authority to grant or revoke such a license, and what privileges would such a license convey to the holder?
 
''Who would have the authority to grant or revoke such a license, and what privileges would such a license convey to the holder? ''

I dont have a firm answer on these, but I am thinking towards everybody should be allowed to have the licence given by an official journalist licence body. They should not revoke any licences, but they should keep records on use and abuse of the journalist rights the holder of the licence has displayed. It could be done a bit like in the way Amnesty keeps records of all human rights abuses that come to their attention, and makes them available to the public.
 
Mell said:
I dont have a firm answer on these, but I am thinking towards everybody should be allowed to have the licence given by an official journalist licence body. They should not revoke any licences, but they should keep records on use and abuse of the journalist rights the holder of the licence has displayed. It could be done a bit like in the way Amnesty keeps records of all human rights abuses that come to their attention, and makes them available to the public.
Click to expand...

If everyone gets a license and a license never gets revoked, that makes the licenses useless.

You can track honesty in reporting without the use of a license.
 
''If everyone gets a license and a license never gets revoked, that makes the licenses useless.''

In the US for example, it is already easy to become a journalist. I met an American journalist in Kyrgyzstan, who was working in China. She said, the requirement for her and others to become a journalist was a dare devil attitude, no ties, and clerical speed and accuracy to get the news back to the US before the Chinese authorities could intervene. She did not need to have any qualification from a school for it

Also, news bodies are starting to encourage reports from ordinary people, who just happen to be in a hot spots when something breaks out.

Id say, it is up to us to interpret the news we receive, with the help of a reputation system for individuals reporting, since just about anybody is allowed to report the news anyway. We could read the news with a view to how reputable the reporter is. ie are they a tourist with no agenda maybe or a journalist with a licence and a good or bad reputation. I think more open reporting may be one way to override bias in the news, because we will have a larger field to assess.
 
I'm completely in agreement, but now it sounds like you've decided that licensing isn't necessary.

I'm so confused! :lol:
 
I am just saying, that if a licencing body, keeps a record of the journalists reputation then this record could be a guide for possible readers of the journalist. One cant stop others reporting what they see(ie travel bloggers etc), even if they are not journalists, but a licence for official journalists would allow us to make a decision on whether to trust what we read or not . It is not a cut and dried thing. We also have to make up our own minds, about whether information from whichever source is reasonable or not. But, journalists working for major news bodies such as FOX, BBC... should have licences which are attached to some kind of record of their trust worthiness or untrustworthiness.
 
It sounds like what you're after isn't actual regulation of reporters, so much as some kind of an objective record of their performance available for all to see.

We don't need the government for this. Private industry could do it.

For example, look at the bottom of virtually any electronic device sold in the US -- it will have a UL certification. UL, short for Underwriters Laboratories I believe, provides product testing services, and their safety certification is practically required for selling a viable product in the United States. If you sell a product without it, and it causes harm to a user, you're pretty much guaranteed the death of your product and your business in civil court.
 
PS.

'' One cant stop others reporting what they see(ie travel bloggers etc), ''

And we shouldnt try to stop them either, but if they dont have a journalists licence, we can view what they report as personal opinion mingled with fact, rather than just assume it to be fact as one would expect from a journalist with a top reputation for reporting balanced news items.
 
''If you sell a product without it, and it causes harm to a user, you're pretty much guaranteed the death of your product and your business in civil court. ''

Yes, this is why journalists reporting the facts to us, should have a licence to back up what they say. Otherwise, we can assume that the information we are reading may not be fact.
 
Mell said:
Yes, this is why journalists reporting the facts to us, should have a licence to back up what they say. Otherwise, we can assume that the information we are reading may not be fact.
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable idea. All you need to do is either find someone with enough money that they wouldn't mind spending it on a venture to track the reliability of accredited reporters -- that, or come up with business model wherein journalist organizations pay you to certify their reporters.
 
Everybody has the right to free speech, but I think that in the future a formalized "journalist" status could be useful. With blogs and social networks allowing anybody's words to be globally accessible the line between normal writings and published information is blurring, and will only get fuzzier. I could conceive of supporting a system that grants licensed journalists a greater degree of protection for their writings and sources in return for standards regarding truthfulness or fact checking or the like.

The best thing, though, might be a private non-profit organization to endorse journalists. A sort of BBB for journalists whose endorsement is contingent on truthfulness and absence of bias in reporting.
 
Mell said:
... but a licence for official journalists would allow us to make a decision on whether to trust what we read or not .
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... but what if the people in charge of issuing said licenses are crooked to begin with?
 
''I think that in the future a formalized "journalist" status ''

I like the way the UN give a list of news articles they approve of as accurate. If other major organisations do the same, we could assess which news articles we are willing to trust, and which we will give the benefit of the doubt to or not. A licence reputation could be based on approvals from a number of organisations, as well as individuals. For example, if a journalist is only approved by the BNP for example we could view the news reports from this journalist with taking this into consideration.
 
''Hmmm.... but what if the people in charge of issuing said licenses are crooked to begin with? ''

Likely, they would gain a reputation for it, if that is the case, and become invalid.
 
No license needed...... the American public is perfectly capable of discerning a good journalist from a bad, why do you think the MSM is going broke? (with the exception of FOX, WSJ, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom