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
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.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.
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."
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
State run media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: State run media?
TFTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad analogy
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 chronology ]
Would be nice
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 chronology ]
Re: Would be nice
To save ink/paper/bits better for them to disclose when they don't have a conflict of interest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Would be nice
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 chronology ]
Registered whatevers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately Unsurprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately Unsurprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunately Unsurprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately Unsurprising
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 chronology ]
Nuisance Legislation
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 chronology ]
They don't like us paying attention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
"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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Who can you trust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't make it a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then what's the point of the bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
HITLER WOULD BE PROUD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
little gold star
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 chronology ]
Re: little gold star
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 chronology ]
Re: little gold star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: little gold star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MSM
Mike, it appears you are not a "real" journalist. Better pay up to get on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance of our country's foundation seems to be a prerequisite for public office these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]