Michigan Politician Proposes Bill To Regulate Journalists So He Can Tell You Which Reporters To Trust

from the let-me-introduce-you-to-my-friend,-the-first-amendment dept

Tue, Jun 1st 2010 6:20am — Mike Masnick

Romenesko points us to the news of a Michigan state senator, who has proposed a bill that would regulate the press. The bill would require people who want to be considered the press to pay a registration fee and submit writing samples to get registered. Also, you would need to have a journalism degree, three years of experience and a letter of recommendation from someone else in the club of "registered reporters." That old First Amendment makes this one a non-starter, of course. In response to that point, the Senator who proposed it, Bruce Patterson, claims he never expected the bill to pass:

"I mainly just wanted to stimulate discussion," he told me. "I didn't think the bill would be likely to pass, but I thought I'd put it out there and if there was any support from your profession, we'd move forward. Heck, I thought it might be helpful to legitimate journalists," he said.

Indeed, he made some valid points. "There are fewer legitimate reporters who cover the legislature all the time. I see stuff being written by people I never heard of, and I don't know whether they have any credentials.

"You have bloggers and editorial writers who write about what we are doing who never come up here and have no idea what's going on. If I need a plumber, I want one who has credentials and who is licensed by the state."

Of course, that's misleading in the extreme. First of all, it's his opinion as to whether or not there are "legitimate journalists" covering the legislature. Just because he doesn't like a journalist doesn't make him or her illegitimate. As for other regulated professions, such as plumbers, that's a totally different situation (and, of course, there are strong economic arguments for why regulating industries like plumbing are actually bad for consumers as well). Finding someone to fix your sink is not the same thing as reading someone's take on what happened in the news.

It is also important to note that the senator is not proposing preventing anyone who is not a "Michigan Registered Reporter" from writing or broadcasting the news.

"I just thought it might be helpful in terms of helping figure out whose reporting you can trust," he said. And creating a government sanctioned body, that will almost certainly be highly politicized is the best way to do that? Why not recognize that your constituents aren't idiots, and there are all sorts of methods by which they can figure out whom to trust. If there's really a strong demand for filtering out trustworthy journalists, then let a private organization give journalists a stamp of approval, rather than having the government license journalists. But, the real issue is that trust is fluid. People build up trust through their writing and reporting, and the nice thing about the online world today is that if you report stuff that is consistently inaccurate, others can call you on it and you can lose the trust of people. You don't need the government to step in and help.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bruce patterson, free speech, journalism, michigan, regulated press

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Doe, 1 Jun 2010 @ 6:48am

State run media?
The media is practically state run as it is, this would just make it official.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tek'a R (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 6:48am

I am not always up-to-date on the various wastes of money that lawmakers cause, but this has to be pretty far up there.

There is no provision for "starting a bill just to create discussion" as far as i know, no "just joking guys" motion to veto. This is a lawmaker burning public funds on a dead-end bill just to use it as a personal soapbox and an excuse to give out interviews and press conferences.

Lets hope the people of Michigan inform the senator of what they think about waste when election time comes around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 6:55am

the funny part is that the law likely would pass the first amendment, if looked at closely. in a sense, it would define a report in the same narrow sort of way that the laws currently define marriage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jaws4the, 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:00am

Re: State run media?
"The state is practically media run as it is..."

TFTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schmoo, 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:29am

The closest we have to this is still pretty good, IMHO - just look for citations/attributions and the liberal replacement of assertions with questions. If you see that lot, you're looking at the output of a legitimate journalist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny, 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:30am

Bad analogy
""You have bloggers and editorial writers who write about what we are doing who never come up here and have no idea what's going on. If I need a plumber, I want one who has credentials and who is licensed by the state.""

Yeah that is certainly not the same thing. A more accurate analogy would be if he were looking for an estimate on getting the plumbing in his house redone. He could get an estimate from a certified plumber with a long list of credentials or he could get an estimate from a person that has no credentials but has plenty of actual work experience on plumbing.

From there there are pros and cons of each.

Sure the certified plumber has longer history of credentials to check out (like so called "legitimate journalists") but there is a chance that they are more concnered with making money then getting the job done. In which case you may end up with a plumber that is there to serve him/herself and not you (similar to journalists who rather then give straight facts try to put their own spin on the story in order to sway you in a certain direction).

On the other hand you can go with the person who has of actual experience but no street cred (aka a blogger). They may not be vetted by "the right sources" but at the same time they may try to help you in ways the certified plumber won't. Instead of trying to feed you a party line they may just tell you the straight facts so that you can form your own opinion.

Of course the reverse might be true (where the "legitimate journalist" is being fair and unbalanced and blogger isn't) so I say let them all report and let the readers decide who to go with.

Trying to regulate who can report on the news is a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JackSombra (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:35am

Would be nice
While I agree that this bill is horse manure I will say in today’s world, of constantly changing faces, lack of corporate editorial control* and such it is becoming harder and harder to find out who is truly an impartial (though maybe opinionated) reporter/commentator and who is getting basically getting paid (one way or another) to push an angle/product.

The IPad is a prime example, the amount of pro ipad articles, both in the blogosphere and official media has been staggering, especially when you consider the fact that it’s just an oversized itouch/iPhone(without the phone). Nice if you want it (no one ‘needs’ it) but defiantly not revolutionary/game changing/must have that all the reporter’s/commentators would have us believe. And main reason they want us to believe this? Besides “perks” from apple, apple has managed to convince many of them that the ipad will bring them loads more customers and revenue streams. They want ipad to succeed because they see it benefiting themselves

It would be nice if someone could come up with a nice way to force reporters/blogger/commentators to give disclosure whenever they might have a conflict of interest so we don’t have to spend ages investigating them

*Yes newspapers/magazines can and generally are biased, but at least with them you quickly get to what their angle is and then it becomes safe to assume that every article in that paper no matter who writes it will be “following the party line”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:36am

Registered whatevers
They should also require wannabe politicians and sitting ones as well to pass a knowledge of law test, have a political science degree, and pass a polygraph test under the influence of sodium pentothal to prove that they are "honest"... What a pinhead!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:44am

Unfortunately Unsurprising
Taking into account this administration's stance in regards to wanting to dictate to journalists and commentators what they should or should not say. And this president going as far as suggesting which news publications people should be reading...unsurprising that this outrageous bill is proposed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:45am

Re: Would be nice
It would be nice if someone could come up with a nice way to force reporters/blogger/commentators to give disclosure whenever they might have a conflict of interest so we don’t have to spend ages investigating them

To save ink/paper/bits better for them to disclose when they don't have a conflict of interest!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:52am

Nuisance Legislation
"I mainly just wanted to stimulate discussion," he told me. "I didn't think the bill would be likely to pass,

This idiot should be billed for the tax dollars he wasted proposing a law he knew could not pass. There should be laws prohibiting 'nuisance legislation' like the ones for 'nuisance lawsuits' (although those don't work very well, at least it's a start).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:01am

They don't like us paying attention
The politicians don't like all the eyes watching and scrutinizing their every move. Thus, the first step to a government controlled press.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yoshi, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:10am

Re: Would be nice
The fact that you think the iPad is an "oversized iTouch" just show that you have no clue on the subject or an understanding of the consumer market. In other words - your comment is the the perfect example of misinformed idiotic that this politician was complaining about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:19am

Actually...
This guy's bill would perfectly solve what he's trying to solve. For example:

"I just thought it might be helpful in terms of helping figure out whose reporting you can trust."

With his caveat that he wouldn't stop others from reporting outside of the state licensed journalists, this solves the problem of finding out who to trust. State licensed? Don't trust them. Not state licensed? Kind of trust them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:28am

"You have bloggers and editorial writers who write about what we are doing who never come up here and have no idea what's going on."

I have politicians commenting on blogs and have no idea what's going on.

To say that someone has no idea what's going on just because they may disagree with you is nonsense. What, those you deem ignorant shouldn't be subject to free speech? And who are you to determine what constitutes someone who has no idea what's going on. Just because they disagree with you on something? What, you think that you are a better judge of which blogs are legitimate and which ones aren't than me or anyone else. and I bet those that agree with you and don't criticize you are the only ones that don't know what's going on, am I correct? Get lost, I hope you get voted out of office you evil tyrant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:29am

Re:
are the only ones that know what's going on *
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:36am

Right, so it would be sort of like a list of censored "news sources" who receive Journalistic protections as opposed to those who get crushed by the club of private litigation.

It's interesting how the corporate agenda uses the sledge hammer of civil litigation to skirt the constitution. Three strikes, for example... I see a trend here.. sigh...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:40am

"a letter of recommendation from someone else in the club of "registered reporters.""

So you want to legitimize journalism by requiring a letter of recommendation from someone in the most illegitimate and downright dishonest group of reporters ever, the mainstream media (and to the extent that they are accurate it's ONLY because the Internet forces them to be accurate against their will because Internet users and blogs will correct them otherwise, but they still censor tons of important information and are extremely bias. I remember a few years ago, even, they were extremely inaccurate, claiming all sorts of preposterous stuff like the Canadian income tax rate is 50 percent and whatnot to oppose healthcare, not that I support healthcare, and many more completely inaccurate reportings. These people are downright liars and you want a letter of recommendation from them? No thanks).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:45am

"If I need a plumber, I want one who has credentials and who is licensed by the state."

I worked with a master plumber for close to 10 years. I can take your kitchen/bathroom down to wall studs, and back to a beautiful room using top notch materials.

Because I am not "licensed" with the state of Pa; does that mean I am not qualified?

"You have bloggers and editorial writers who write about what we are doing who never come up here and have no idea what's going on."
Yeah, and obviously we have Senators who are "up there" and have no idea what's going on either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SteelWolf (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:47am

Re: Re: Would be nice
Yoshi, it's okay for people to dislike the iPad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:51am

Re:
depending on where you are, you may not legally be allowed to do the work, nor would you be able to get insurance without a license and qualifications. your ability is a question of if you can or not physically, a license or certification is "proof" that you can. remember, your master plumber was certified and insured, otherwise you wouldnt be doing the work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beefcake (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:56am

Funny, I've occasionally and briefly considered how nice it would be if politicians were similarly certified so the voters would know whether or not they're competent to hold the office. Then you'd need to certify the voters to make sure they're competent enough to understand the politician certification process.

Then I rejoin reality and laugh it off. If he wants to stimulate discussion, get a Twitter account or a blog. Legislation at any level is the final step, not the exploration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny, 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:57am

Re: Re: Would be nice
While off topic I'd like to know why JackSombra's description of the iPad being an oversized iTouch is inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WammerJammer (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 8:58am

Who can you trust?
Can you trust the politician to be legitimate? Is he/she a political science graduate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:14am

If the bill wouldn't substantively affect anyone's right to speak (i.e. you don't need to be a registered reporter to report on whatever the hell you want) then I'm not sure if it would violate the First Amendment.

Doesn't make it a good idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:16am

Re:
"If the bill wouldn't substantively affect anyone's right to speak (i.e. you don't need to be a registered reporter to report on whatever the hell you want)"

Then what's the point of the bill?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:21am

Re: Unfortunately Unsurprising
Except that this legislator is a Republican.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:22am

Re: Re:
Well, apparently the sponsor said it was to "start discussion," but I could also see informing the public about a reporter's supposed "credentials" as a goal of such a bill.

It may have other effects. Not sure.

I'm just pointing out that it's not an *obvious* first amendment violation if it's essentially a labelling bill and not something that really affects one's right to speak/publish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freedom, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:32am

Re:
>> I want one who has credentials and who is licensed by the state.

The purpose of being licensed is two fold:

1 - fees/money to the government

2 - limit competition and artificially increase prices of the trade in question

Sometimes this has the side effect of finding someone you can trust, but it is a side effect and not the main purpose.

The best person is someone that is motivated and properly experienced for the job at hand. However, they don't have a license for that.

As anyone in IT hiring can tell you, having a XYZ Certified Person doesn't mean anything. Experience and attitude are what matters. If given the choice, I'll take someone that has an interest in IT with the right attitude any day over pretty much anything else.

Freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:33am

Re: Re: Unfortunately Unsurprising
So much for republicans being pro free market capitalist. Only when it serves big business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:47am

HITLER WOULD BE PROUD
GO USA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:49am

little gold star
'It is also important to note that the senator is not proposing preventing anyone who is not a "Michigan Registered Reporter" from writing or broadcasting the news.'

So this isn't a license, and it isn't regulation. It's getting your name on a list.

I see no serious harm in this. If Michigan wants to maintain such a register, so that only some journalists can boast that they are "Michigan Registered", what's the problem? The readers can decide for themselves what it means. (Personally I think that if the state retains the power to refuse to register someone who meets the qualifications, then it's a list of reporters who won't criticize the government, and I wouldn't bother reading their columns.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:03am

Re: Re: Re: Would be nice
because you're not supposed to tell iLovers (people who do backflips and turn themselves inside out for anything apple tosses an 'i' in front of) that an iDevice is not really anything more than a dressed up and larger version of the same device they put out a year or two ago.

it really makes them start drooling hyperventilating running around in circles and bashing their heads into rocks, walls, hammers, kittens, ice picks and handfuls of thumbtacks.

not ALL mac people are like this, but all iLovers are.

(in other words, its not an inaccurate description)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:05am

Re: little gold star
'It is also important to note that the senator is not proposing preventing anyone who is not a "Michigan Registered Reporter" from writing or broadcasting the news.'

That's because we already have the FCC to do that for us. You already can't broadcast the news, on public airwaves, without a license. The whole purpose is exactly to blindfold the public to the truth enabling the top one percent to scam us broke and, outside the Internet, it pretty much works. They just want to extend their scam to the Internet as well, that's all this is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:08am

Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately Unsurprising
sadly it appears that both sides have become bored of late and have been swapping ideology and talking points with the other side.

a democratic president with perhaps the worst environmental record ever, republicans fighting tooth and nail FOR things to limit free market enterprises and both sides agreeing wholeheartedly that our individual rights pretty much mean nothing.

time to ditch the two party system and go back to voting for people that actually have guts and a real idea that doesnt get spoon fed to them by consultants during campaign runs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:11am

Re: little gold star
and often times these licenses start out benign, just like with broadcasting licenses. They started out with only a few stations and were loosely enforced. But, over time, they keep on extending and extending them until, before you know it, you'll need a license to comment on a blog or a message board. That's the whole idea, but they can't start out like that, it's an incremental process. Just like taking over public airwaves and handing out all of the spectra to a small group of people was an incremental process, didn't happen all at once. At one point the FCC ensured that no one entity can monopolize too much at once (before that they only required licenses for certain spectra). But it eventually reached the point we have now where the very few have taken away all of our rights, but it's an incremental process. Doesn't happen all at once. Now almost everything needs a license, and the only things that don't (ie: wifi) aren't good at transmitting signals across long distances and the FCC sets intensity restrictions making with the intent of making it difficult to make a wireless Internet like communication structure. It's a scam, and this bill is a scam, but don't expect it to start out restricting all of our rights all at once. It takes times for these scams to fully control us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:14am

Re: Re:
"a license or certification is "proof""
OK...now I cant tell you how many "techs" have certifications that just studied questions and answers with no understanding of what or why. (A+, NET+, MCSA, etc)So they are "certified", but have no clue.

"otherwise you wouldnt be doing the work."
I made plenty of side money doing sinks, hot water heaters, etc. All that was needed back then was insurance, which I had. I explained to every client, that I was not certified as a master plumber, but carried 500k of insurance. After explaining my past history, and dropping some local names, I eventually made a good name for myself. I never had a dissatisfied client. My "proof" was my finished work.
There is no certification requirement in Pa.
http://phccweb.org/Contractor/content.cfm?ItemNumber=3528&token=13232&userID=7877&n avItemNumber=3531
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:23am

MSM
What it does do, is create a mechanism for the politicians and MSM to discredit anyone who is not on the list, or anyone they dont agree with. Most sheeple will buy into this. Now they have something that looks "official".

Mike, it appears you are not a "real" journalist. Better pay up to get on the list.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny, 1 Jun 2010 @ 2:10pm

Re: Re:
"your ability is a question of if you can or not physically, a license or certification is "proof" that you can"

You might want to get out of the big city more often. I can't think of how many times my family has had all sorts of major work (from redoing the roof to replacing plumbing) done by someone that had no certification but was skilled enough for their name to come up on conversation, ("Hey I'm looking to get some ____ done" "Really? You should get _____. His/Her work is excellent.")

"remember, your master plumber was certified and insured, otherwise you wouldnt be doing the work."
Bear in mind that weneedhelp could have just as well learned plumbing skills on their own or from someone who doesn't have certification and/or insurance. Hell I work tech support for a bank and don't have a single degree or certification to my name. Yeah my job doesn't require such things but that doesn't mean having them or not is an indicator of skill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 7:38pm

Re: Re: little gold star
time *
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek, 1 Jun 2010 @ 9:10pm

Another politician who doesn't understand The Constitution.

Ignorance of our country's foundation seems to be a prerequisite for public office these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]