• 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
Orion said:
I didn't say it's silly because I didn't like your answer; I said it's silly because it is silly..
Click to expand...

but yet still 100% TRUE so if you want to think its silly fine but the fact is news does have the ablity



Orion said:
You can motivate people with words to commit certain actions, but ultimately the responsibility of those actions rests with the people who commit them. If I persuade you to murder someone, you will be the one who gets charged with murder, not me. I wouldn't even be an accessory unless I helped you do it.

I see no reason to blame the news for doing its job. Journalism is supposed to be intrusive and answer-seeking. If the government or military don't want journalists reporting the facts, then they will do what they can to prevent access, as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan with the control of the media. They learned from Vietnam what televised wars can do.

Licensing is only a method of censorship. i.e. you can't publish stories unless you are registered by the state. And who controls the registration process? The State. And who decides the criteria for registration? The State. It's an infringement on the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

blah blah blah
please stay on topic that i was answering
I dont want to punish the news i was only answering your questions please dont confuse the two. I also clearly said a couple times their ablity to kill doesnt change my answer and is not motivation for my answer

does the news have the ability to kill, YES

also im not for anything against the 1st amendment, what I wanted and siad in my post wouldnt do anything to it, thanks
 
O_Guru said:
blah blah blah
please stay on topic that i was answering
I dont want to punish the news i was only answering your questions please dont confuse the two. I also clearly said a couple times their ablity to kill doesnt change my answer and is not motivation for my answer
Click to expand...

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.

O_Guru said:
does the news have the ability to kill, YES
Click to expand...

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.

O_Guru said:
also im not for anything against the 1st amendment, what I wanted and siad in my post wouldnt do anything to it, thanks
Click to expand...

The proposed rule is a direct line to violating freedom of speech. It is unconstitutional and it should and will be shot down.
 
Orion said:
The proposed law would necessarily infringe upon free speech, because if you aren't a licensed journalist then creating your own newsletter with your news stories would be against the law.

Anyone should be allowed to publish news. That's freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

I frankly don't know why you support this kind of ridiculous legislation.
Click to expand...

well since i didnt say i agree with what THEY want to do thats meaningless to what I want
i clealry said in my post anybody should be able to write about what they want I only want licenses because of access but if you choose to sit at a desk and write say, politician B is lying and heres why or this will hurt america and heres why have it thats not my argument LMAo so I frankly dont know how YOU figure I do, I said why i answered yes and it would be based on MY criteria, the criteria i wanted not whatever was being said LOL
 
O_Guru said:
well since i didnt say i agree with what THEY want to do thats meaningless to what I want
i clealry said in my post anybody should be able to write about what they want I only want licenses because of access but if you choose to sit at a desk and write say, politician B is lying and heres why or this will hurt america and heres why have it thats not my argument LMAo so I frankly dont know how YOU figure I do, I said why i answered yes and it would be based on MY criteria, the criteria i wanted not whatever was being said LOL
Click to expand...

Fine... you want licensing for media events... but that is still unacceptable. If a public event is happening and the press is in attendance, anyone who writes for a news source, whether it is corporate or grassroots, should be allowed to attend. The only time I can see media being restricted is during White House press conferences when people need to come with secure references so that security can be maintained.

All other events fall into the private realm and those organizations can allow or deny anyone they want, regardless if they are a "real journalist" or not. The State has no business licensing journalists.
 
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.
Click to expand...

but im not thats already been proven LOL
and you did go off topic has your reply had nothing to do with what i said or was replying too
Orion said:
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes it does no matter how you spin it
i knowPEOPLE kill people but the news does have the ABLITY because it can give them the tools like it was said. What haroldo did could have killed people easily now you can say "that would have been the enimies fault" but the news gave them the info they needed



Orion said:
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...

yeaaaaaaa for the proposed rule LMAO
who said I agree with it
thats right, NOBODY lmao I said yes for licenses but ONLY if they met MY criteria not theirs LOL
Click to expand...
 
Orion said:
Fine... you want licensing for media events... but that is still unacceptable. If a public event is happening and the press is in attendance, anyone who writes for a news source, whether it is corporate or grassroots, should be allowed to attend. The only time I can see media being restricted is during White House press conferences when people need to come with secure references so that security can be maintained.

All other events fall into the private realm and those organizations can allow or deny anyone they want, regardless if they are a "real journalist" or not. The State has no business licensing journalists.
Click to expand...

no NOT public events I said there should be licensing for "special access" reporters have access to info and places normal people dont those people should need licenses to get that access IF they want it, if you just want to write without it then you dont need it
 
O_Guru said:
no NOT public events I said there should be licensing for "special access" reporters have access to info and places normal people dont those people should need licenses to get that access IF they want it, if you just want to write without it then you dont need it
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a good understanding of how journalism works.

You want the State to decide, through licensing, which people are "real journalists" and where they are allowed to go when they cover the news? That's crazy. I mean, China does that, but their news is completely censored by government. If the government doesn't say you're an authorized journalist, then you can't report the news. Period.

The rule of the news in the FREE WORLD is: get access to the story any way you can within legal boundaries. (So you can't break into someone's home to take a picture of them, for example.) There are no rules to access in a system that permits freedom of speech, nor should there be.

Access isn't determined by the State. It's determined by the resources of the journalists. Corporate journalists tend to have more access because their parent companies have more money to send them places, and so their response time is faster, but if the average joe had money put aside to go chasing news stories then that's his right.

Private institutions can pick and choose which reporters get the goods if they are able to restrict access, and that's how it's always been. If they can't restrict access, then it becomes a feeding frenzy and reporters will descend on the scene. That is what journalism is.

What I'm saying is, a law licensing journalists is not necessary whatsoever, and it presents an imminent threat to freedom of speech no matter what way you look at it.
 
Orion said:
I don't think you have a good understanding of how journalism works.

You want the State to decide, through licensing, which people are "real journalists" and where they are allowed to go when they cover the news? That's crazy. I mean, China does that, but their news is completely censored by government. If the government doesn't say you're an authorized journalist, then you can't report the news. Period.
Click to expand...

nope not what i said at all, I also said "correct me if im wrong"
I dont want the goverment deciding who REAL journlists are, nor do i want them to decide where they go. I dont want the access to change one single bit just becasreful who you give it too like we do many things LOL sorry not what i said or want at all

Orion said:
The rule of the news in the FREE WORLD is: get access to the story any way you can within legal boundaries. (So you can't break into someone's home to take a picture of them, for example.) There are no rules to access in a system that permits freedom of speech, nor should there be.
Click to expand...

again something else i never said, reporters are given special access beyond a cilvilan though so give them a back ground check no biggie, please argue something i said LOL

Orion said:
Access isn't determined by the State. It's determined by the resources of the journalists. Corporate journalists tend to have more access because their parent companies have more money to send them places, and so their response time is faster, but if the average joe had money put aside to go chasing news stories then that's his right. .
Click to expand...

again thanksfor telling me this but i never said it was

Orion said:
Private institutions can pick and choose which reporters get the goods if they are able to restrict access, and that's how it's always been. If they can't restrict access, then it becomes a feeding frenzy and reporters will descend on the scene. That is what journalism is.

What I'm saying is, a law licensing journalists is not necessary whatsoever, and it presents an imminent threat to freedom of speech no matter what way you look at it.
Click to expand...
for what "I" want it and not what you are making up in your head there would be no threat to freedom of speech lol sorry
 
Orion said:
The other concerns are already handled by the way the current system works. Government licensing is not needed.
Click to expand...

actually they arent unless all media do full indepth back ground checks, like say a SF 86 or something if thats the case THEN it would be handled but if its not then of course it is not
 
While it is extremely dangerous to require a license to write your opinion and going around to ask people questions to research a story I do understand that there has to be some kind of authorisation for use in the cases where journalists are given privileged access to information, press conferences, police barriers etc. However such an authorisation should only be concerned with legitimising the person as a journalist and should be based on objective parameters like having a degree in journalism or working for a news organisation. Things like "moral character" should not enter into the equation at all.
 
Organizations that want to limit access to certain areas or information have, or should have, policies in place and have the means to enforce those policies. If they do not, it's their problem.

Lying and using fraudulant acts to get to the backstage area at a concert is not exactly a real big deal, from a state security POV, and using this kinid of anecdote to try to justify implementing licensing of the press is stupid .

If you do not think they are handling access now, try to get into the Tuesday press briefing from Press Secretary Gibbs. Please let us know how that works out for you. :roll:
 
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?
 
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...

This "no law" business was written...when??...200 years ago?
So I am the knucklehead who voted YES, but with reservations.
The question should be, "do we have the quality of men to improve these ancient laws?"
 
earthworm said:
This "no law" business was written...when??...200 years ago?
So I am the knucklehead who voted YES, but with reservations.
The question should be, "do we have the quality of men to improve these ancient laws?"
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter when or why the law was written here any more than it does in the debate on illegal immigration, with respect to the 14th Amendment.

When and why are only relevant when you're dealing with a gray area where the law needs to be interpreted because it wasn't speciic enough, or when the law violates some basic principle of natural law.

The First Amendment is pretty damned specific.

That's all I need to know.
 
200 year old Consitution or not, this is a REALLY bad idea. Giving the government the power to issue licenses for journalists will inevitably lead to a dangerous slippery slope. What scares me the most is not the reason why the government would aprrove someone's license, but the reason why it wouldn't.
 
By the way, I realize that the OP references an article claiming that licensing would be voluntary and not required for being a journalist.

Nevertheless, the question is should you need a license.

Has it occured to any of your "yes" people or "other" people to wonder how, in an environment where a journalistic license is required for reporting the news, the government would go about enforcing that requirement?

What would qualify as reporting the news, anyhow?

Wouldn't a licensing requirement discourage the press from being critical of the government, since it would be the government issuing the license?

What if someone got their hands on solid evidence of a government scandal -- who could report it?
 
Orion said:
Can you give an example of how the news has the ability to kill people?
Click to expand...
A covert operation of some sort, exposed by a news agency, leads to the death of some covert agents and/or those they are protecting.

O_Guru said:
LOL whatever I call that tomato "twomato"

Any fear of corruption/conspiracies over the government doing it can be equal to any corporation doing it
Click to expand...
You would be wrong then.

I was not speaking of a license to be a journalist, but a certificate/license more along the lines of a diploma, basically saying "we have tested this journalist's ability to pursue their field, and find that they are in step with the standards we set for such".

A journalist would be able to practice their calling without such, but if they had it they would be considered more reputable (depending on the circles they worked in, of course).

Now, obviously a degree in journalism does this to an extent, but I was thinking more along the lines of a entity that constantly checks up on them, perhaps yearly tests/examination of work/critique…
 
earthworm said:
This "no law" business was written...when??...200 years ago?
So I am the knucklehead who voted YES, but with reservations.
The question should be, "do we have the quality of men to improve these ancient laws?"
Click to expand...

A good idea, properly executed has no time limit. It could be written 2,000 year ago and it would still apply. The answer to your question is "No" we do not have the quality of men to improve anything.
 
All dictatorships have licenses for journalists, all fascists and undemocratically regimes try to destroy the freedom of speech at first.
 
Alfons said:
All dictatorships have licenses for journalists, all fascists and undemocratically regimes try to destroy the freedom of speech at first.
Click to expand...

You said it. We live in a society that demands better than the environments fascists and undesirable regimes prescribe. Therefore we are stuck embracing the **** that goes with a free society.
 
MSgt said:
What would be the difference from what goes on now?
Click to expand...

Not much, I'm afraid but it would at least not make things worse to drop the plans to require licenses based on "moral character" for people to work as journalists.

Currently there is a lot of bias in the media because of corporate ownership, advertising and political spin. I don't think having politicians deciding who gets to be a journalist would make the system any less corrupt than it is now.
 
No you shouldnt need a license to be a journalist by any means. And I don't care about whether or not you're a journalist calling for gun laws or removal or reduction of existing rights, it is your right to freely speak about how you want to change the system and your political views. The Constitution and laws aren't set in stone they are meant to change, whether thats a lessening of rights like the 18th amendment outlawing alcohol or a law or change increasing rights. Like gay marriage or god forbid allowing gay servicemen to serve openly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom