HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 5, 2004 Journalists are busy talking about journalism these days. They’re arguing about liberal bias. They’re reeling from the last election, which generally surprised them. They’re watching two of the Big Three icons retire. Journalists love to talk about themselves, and self-indulgent and boring as it is, at least it distracts them from distorting truly important news. I’d prefer to ignore journalism altogether, except for two related events. The first is a new federal bill that shields journalists from revealing their sources. Second, the Baltimore Sun is suing Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich because Ehrlich bars state employees from speaking with two Sun reporters. We should dismiss both the bill and the suit quickly, lest journalists think we agree with their own self-importance. I don’t like reporters and what passes for “hard news.” Frankly, the concept of reporting is preposterous. Journalists presume to inform the rest of us on what’s happening. The problem is they’re not experts in the fields they cover. The reporter who covers the local fire is not himself a firefighter; the reporter who covers a suspect's arrest is not himself a cop. More often than not, the reporter can only deliver the information the participants are willing to give him. They’re the guys at the bar who weren’t in the fight, and usually, they don’t appreciate why anyone’s angry. To them, one guy just started swinging. Now it’s true that some reporters may have covered stories for so long that they acquire experience about a topic, but experience is not the same as expertise. That’s why we shouldn't allow reporters to frame public debate. It would be like letting the hospital receptionist explain options for surgery. Sure, they may have hung around the hospital and seen many things for many years, but that hardly proves they know what they’re talking about. The press doesn’t want you to remember that. They argue that they’re vital to democracy. The premises are familiar. Citizens need to know what their government is up to. We don’t trust governments to reveal their own crimes or shortcomings. The press relies on sources to come forward, often risking their careers. Without the shield, those sources would avoid exposure. The shield is essential to a free press, and a free press is essential to an informed citizenry, which is essential to democracy. Consider this quote from Robert H. Giles, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University: "From time to time, public officials become angry at the press and say they won't talk to reporters, but soon they recognize that they have a responsibility to inform the public and doing so through the press is really the only effective way to do that." This is plainly not true these days, if it ever was. Every governmental agency has a website. Every department and committee publishes reams of reports every year. If three government employees gather for more than ten minutes, some law requires they publish their discussion. The issue is not whether the government informs the public; the issue is whether the mainstream press is the vehicle. The devil is in these details. The press considers itself the arbiter between the public and government. The importance of the federal shield and the Maryland lawsuit is that they want the public, and the law, to canonize that relationship. That’s a bad idea, a very bad idea. We do not want the press, especially but not only the major newspapers and networks, to control or moderate the relationship between government and citizens. We want government to answer to us directly, not through the prism of the press. In short, we shouldn’t treat the press any differently than the ordinary citizen. If the press wants to investigate wrongdoing or abuse of power, fine, but their right to investigate is the same right any citizen has. That’s the key. The members of the press are ordinary citizens. They have no special rights. If a governor doesn’t want to talk with a specific reporter, he has every right to refuse. He also has the right to prevent any employee under his authority to speak with a reporter. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. No private citizen has the right to force a government official to speak with him, and neither should a reporter. If a reporter publishes a story that causes damage, like any other citizen, we should hold that reporter as responsible as any other citizen. If a reporter promises to keep a source confidential, he does so without any legal protection. When push comes to shove, the reporter needs to obey the same subpoenas and court orders that ordinary citizens must obey. Reporters are citizens, nothing more. The law does protect confidential discussions in some professions, but the press doesn’t qualify. We don’t prosecute doctors, psychiatrists, and priests precisely because those professions keep their secrets. If you tell your sins to a priest, the priest is duty-bound not to reveal your confession. Doctors can't release details of a patient’s condition. Psychiatrists can't publicize your dreams. In essence, we won’t prosecute you for keeping your secrets … so long as you keep them. Journalists, however, do exactly the opposite. The moment you tell a secret to a journalist, you expect him to publicize it. That’s what journalists do. Why is that an important difference? A doctor or priest doesn’t use that confidential information to influence public affairs; journalists do. The doctor or priest uses confidential information strictly on behalf of the one confessing; journalists publicize confidential information to influence everyone. It’s true that a gag order makes it harder for a reporter to do his job. Big deal. I’ll bet you don’t recall the last time your boss wept because something made your job harder. It’s also true that whistle- blowers wouldn't seek out reporters if their identity were vulnerable. Fine. Let whistle- blowers go to a congressman of the opposite party. The whistle will be just as loud, and it’ll have the force of law, more than just the damage of public opinion. Under the current environment, the only ones who suffer are the reporters. They’ll tell you the public is in danger, but we’re not. Beware anyone who claims that when his life gets more difficult, yours will also. That’s not a plea for help. That's a threat. ------------ About the author: KC Mulville is a computer programmer, a happy husband and father of four, and holds several degrees in philosophy. Email KC Mulville: kcmulville@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
