Journalism Ethics

The definition of oxymoron, right there. Journalists desire a "professional" status like that of Priests or Doctors or Lawyers.

Puhleeze.

Tigerhawk via Instapundit recommends this "Code" for journalists to live by. Journalists shouldn't need a code, should they? I mean isn't it implicit that they report the TRUTH?

Uh, okay. So it is not implicit. Making an explicit statement will do nothing to make it so. Just like the Hippocratic Oath doesn't make a doctor automatically act in the patient's best interest.

What journalists want is to print anything, call it truth and have extra protection against any investigation when it turns out to be pure poppy-cock. Forget it.

Let's be real here and go back to the true American Way. Back in the day, the founding fathers and other important guys including Abraham Lincoln had to suffer all manner of blasphemy. Their ideas had to rise above the cacophony of blather both true and false.

Individual citizens had to feret out the truth. Some journalistic institutions, like some bloggers and very few reporters, consistently put out rock solid information, others (including the New York Times these days) put out slanted invective. People must take this into account when they read it.

The idealized 50s, with three network anchors droning on about the news of the day, neutrally and objectively were fantasy as much as the happy housewife was a fantasy. They were neither neutral nor objective. Their delivery was given neutrally but the message was anything but. Editors edited the news. That means what a person felt was important or not important got said or didn't. Filterd. There was a reason that the 1950's culture was more monolithic. Fewer people filtered information. Fewer people filtered invention.

Let the market work out the journalistic profession. People will trust news sources that consistently help them with accurate information. People will seek news sources that try to give the whole story (roadside bombs in Iraq is not the whole story--people know this because there are bloggers and some reporters getting the whole story out).

When so-called journalists produce some country-harming pieces designed to steer government policy rather than report to inform, throw them in the clink after a nice long public trial that is fully covered by the media.

Journalists no longer, if they ever did, have the motive to inform. They want to sensationalize in order to sell more papers. They want to be first even if they are wrong. Too often, they want an agenda fulfilled and serve as a sock puppet for some governmental institution.

Don't you find though, that people who do what they do for love an aren't paid, or are paid next to nothing, or work hard for a long, long time and finally get paid but would do it anyway even if they didn't, don't you find that these people work hard because ALL they have is their reputation? These people, many of them bloggers, will be be who people turn to for information.

In China, traditional doctors used to only get paid when the patient got well. Reputation meant everything. In the U.S., if all professionals--doctors, lawyers, money managers etc. only got paid based on their success, a lot of professionals would be out of business.

Unfortunately, the "professional status" gives people a false sense of security. Newsflash, not all doctors graduated at the top or middle of their class. Some are stupid. Likewise for lawyers and moneymanagers. At least with the money guys, you can see if you're up or down for the year. Lawyers have the best gig of all. Huge fees by hour, win or lose.

Essentially that's what Journalists want too: indemnity and guaranteed status. Better to leave them unlicensed, un-professionalized and distrust them generally and be pleasantly surprised when one actually reports the truth, than to be lured into safety by some worthless license or professional designation.