Put Your Own–I Mean, Your Very Own–House in Order First

This op-ed on citizen journalism is a lot less offensive than I thought it’d be from reading The Opinionator’s take on it. While Professor Hazinski suffers from the same ignorance about how "citizen journalism" gets vetted that most professional journalists do …

Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

And while he also suffers from a misguided belief that journalism’s existing ethics–the ones that are failing us badly as a society, like so-called "objectivity" created by on-the-one-side-on-the-other-side-but-no-truth Joe Klein style of journalism–ought to be adopted by "citizen journalists" …

Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff’s auxiliaries are trained and certified.

But at its heart, Hazinski’s op-ed calls for something that the Press has been fighting against for over two hundred years–real enforcement of professional journalism’s so-called ethics.

The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

[snip]

There is no licensing, testing, mandatory education or boards of review. Most other professions do a poor job of self-regulation, but at least they have mechanisms to regulate themselves. Journalists do not.

[snip]

They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning.

While his calls for "regulation" would almost certainly violate the Constitution, I do appreciate his recognition that journalism needs to put its own house in order before its planned demolition of ours.

But I couldn’t help by laugh at this line, which suggests Professor Helzinski should be putting his very own house in order before he even starts looking at his colleagues’ houses.

False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors.

While it’s true that CNN debunked the Washington Times story (not an internet rumor) that Obama went to a madrassa, in general, I think this latest champion of standards in journalism doesn’t really have a clear idea of what the word "debunk" means. Because last I checked, "other news agencies" were actually propagating that unfounded claim, presenting it as hard-hitting reporting.

Update: William Ockham adds:

I know that what I’m about to say is really picky, but when a journalism prof takes it upon himself to lecture us about the perils of citizen journalism, he’s leaving himself open. Associate Professor Hazinski needs to consider hiring a copy editor or proofreader. Principles are not principals. While I have known many ethical principals, I certainly don’t think that “adhering to the principals” should be made mandatory under any circumstances. That would lead to any number of sticky situations in the public schools and elsewhere.

I suppose he’s talking about this:

There are commonly accepted ethical principals — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principals is voluntary.

image_print
  1. Loo Hoo. says:

    The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
    Please contact the server administrator to inform of the time the error occurred and of anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

    Guess it’s not quite ready…

    • phred says:

      Loo Hoo — try it again, the link appears to be working just fine now. Thanks!

      EW, I agree that something like a Bar Association for journalists that could essentially dis-bar them for failing to adhere to fundamental standards is enticing, but I think in practice it would be impossible to enforce. There is nothing wrong with our media that can’t be fixed by the wide-open and level playing field of the web. If crap reporters in the MSM keeping peddling their bs, readers will go elsewhere to find a better product. Let them die a slow lingering death, maintaining their denial of their own complicity in their fate.

      Is it really any wonder that the media/telco giants are doing their damnedest to kill the level playing field we currently have on the web? It’s more of the corporate strategy of manipulating Congress to give them an unfair advantage when they can’t compete in a fair fight. “Free” markets my ass, I wonder what the world would be like if we actually had real competition in the market place.

      • bobschacht says:

        EW, I agree that something like a Bar Association for journalists that could essentially dis-bar them for failing to adhere to fundamental standards is enticing, but I think in practice it would be impossible to enforce. There is nothing wrong with our media that can’t be fixed by the wide-open and level playing field of the web. If crap reporters in the MSM keeping peddling their bs, readers will go elsewhere to find a better product. Let them die a slow lingering death, maintaining their denial of their own complicity in their fate.

        Is it really any wonder that the media/telco giants are doing their damnedest to kill the level playing field we currently have on the web? It’s more of the corporate strategy of manipulating Congress to give them an unfair advantage when they can’t compete in a fair fight. “Free” markets my ass, I wonder what the world would be like if we actually had real competition in the market place.

        I think regulation is out of reach. But how about “grading,” by a professional organization of journalists? We already have “awards” for journalism. Why not just extend the concept?

        1. First of all, broaden the number of different kinds of awards– like Oscars for Journalism, so that more people, and more organizations, get recognized for their good work. Like awards for

        * Outstanding journalism in a news service (e.g., the field that includes AP, Reuters, UPI, McClatchy)

        * Outstanding journalism in a daily print newspaper (e.g. NYT, WaPo, LAT, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, etc.) This would be difficult because they have relatively large staffs that report on everything from news to entertainment, with a variety of standards.

        * Outstanding TV Journalism (e.g., NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.)

        * Outstanding journalism in weekly news magazines (e.g., Time, Newsweek, USN&WR)

        * Outstanding Internet-based Journalism

        Then, in addition to these awards for “best”, how about some overall grades for the above classes. The “best,” of course, would get A’s, but the other contestants in each class would get graded, too: each one graded according to a public set of standards, voted by peers. (Wouldn’t we like to see what “grade” Joke Line would get? Maybe his “grade” would be enough of an embarrassment to motivate him to shape up!)

        With the voting controlled by professional peers, they would be freed from the controlling directives of business management and bean counters who care more about Nielsen ratings and other such measures, rather than journalistic quality.

        Bob in HI

        • Rayne says:

          Not a bad idea, Bob; should actually have a running monthly grade, though, as far as I’m concerned, with awards at the end of the year.

        • phred says:

          bob — that’s certainly better than the certification approach, but given the penchant the MSM has to make excuses for themselves and each other, a “professional” peer group that would potentially exclude the citizen journalists like EW and the folks over at TPM, doesn’t seem adequate to me. Perhaps the voting should be opened up to the readers, although in a way we already get a vote with our on-line hits. However, the dead tree subscribers are stuck with giving the NYT the impression that they approve of Miller/Gordon-type reporting, when what they are really after are Krugman and Herbert.

          And as for your following comment about the Dems lack of familiarity with principles, I couldn’t agree more. Apparently Reid has just issued a huge go-Cheney-yourselves to the public by bringing the SSCI version of FISA to the floor. Yep, I can’t wait to go vote for Democrats in 2008. At least this time I won’t waste my time making phone calls for them or sending the incumbents any money. Honestly if they can’t ACT any differently than Rethugs, they should stop wasting their breath TALKING as if they were different.

  2. Richmond says:

    Part of the problem is that now MSM is owned by corporations such as GE and Baine Investments. The aim of journalism has switched from reporting to serving the corporations that hire them. Even publich entities (NPR for example) have been politicized. It is up to the journalists themselves to do something, but alas, they are now a central part of the problem (Michael Gordon, Judith Miller are a case in point).

  3. petrecca says:

    There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes waponyt hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com emptywheel.firedoglake.com

    there. much better.

  4. bmaz says:

    …courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer … sheriff’s auxiliaries are trained and certified.

    Oh goody. This cluck want us all to get trained up the same as the local sheriff’s posse. Well, here in Maricopa County Arizona, that means we will be qualified to sell pink underwear replicas of the sheriff’s jail clothing, that he provides to inmates, in the shopping malls during the Christmas season. You might remember our local embarrassment of a sheriff, Joe Arpaio, he is the one that serves bogus subpoenas on news organizations for their entire website databases….

  5. TheraP says:

    mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures,

    This amuses me. As if “ethics” could be “certified.” Well, it can be “taught.” And in my state, my profession, every two years we must take a day’s worth of ethics, to remind us, again and again, of our duties and responsibilities.

    But having served for 7 years on the State Ethics Committee, I know for sure that there is no way to “certify” anyone’s conscience will adhere to an ethics code when push comes to shove.

    I honestly think ethical people can be detected, based on their behavior across a variety of situations, in early adulthood. Because it’s based on one’s conscience. Based on a person putting values for the common good ahead of their own personal gain.

    So, it’s amusing to me to read that someone thinks you can “teach” ethics and then “certify” based on that. Ethical decision-making is a process. It is lifelong. It requires that people gather together and discuss issues on a regular basis. And it requires, I submit, a person who has a tender conscience to begin with.

    I honestly do not believe, based on my clinical experience, that people can develop a conscience in adulthood, if they lack one. No matter the profession they join. If they have one already, it can develop and become even more sensitive to social and moral wrongs. And rights.

    People with a strong conscience will resist pressure to conform to bad behavior. Will pursue an independent course of action despite hardships. I admire such people. I think they are attracted to each other on sites like this or in other social groups.

    I think we are all seeking person’s of conscience all the time – if we have a conscience to begin with.

    I think conscience helps us adhere to an ethics code, detect wrongs – ethics codes or not, and detect people with whom we can share and uphold our ideals.

    Once you have a conscience, you can join any profession. And perform it ethically. The opposite is also true: without a conscience, you will tarnish any profession you enter.

    I think, for this reason, having a conscience, having empathy, caring about the common good, and acting for the common good are, for me, the over-riding factors to be taken into account when placing anyone in high office. Or low office for that matter.

    This is the problem we are up against in politics, journalism, etc.

  6. Leen says:

    “Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.”

    “Information without journalistic standards is called gossip” Or death sentences for American soldiers and the Iraqi people in the hands of Judy Miller and the New York Times.

    “Information without Journalistic standards is called gossip” or a very serious crime when Robert Novak takes part in outing a Cia agent endangering her life and undermining National Security.

    The lack of Journalistic standards in both of these cases is far more than “gossip”

    It was the lack of the MSM’s so called journalistic standards that created the need for blogs and other internet news.

  7. der1 says:

    Okay, I can’t write any more than this, I have wood to split, snow coming.
    “…Hillary Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee.”…”False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school…”…”It’s just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere.”…
    just commenting about the obvious racism and bigotry in those 3 statements would be enough but to my eye there’s plenty more base code in that piece and also “Thayah ohutta’ be a lahww to protec’ mah rhait to make ah decent livhun, y’all.” What I would expect, it’s all the fault of the jihadists-communists-secularlists-…take it all the way back.

  8. JohnJ says:

    The buzz words are “trained and certified”.

    This is just another crony system, “higher education”, trying to assert that all is well as long as they set all the rules. They like to pretend that you can only think if you have been shown how by a “professional educator”.

    In my industry, it has been shown time and again that creativity is inversely proportional to level of education. Almost without exception, every small company with a new concept leading to an original product, have chief engineers WITHOUT 4 year degrees. The big “more of the same product” companies refuse to use non-degreed engineers. The best engineers I have known have started with 2 year degrees for the necessary basics, and fill the rest with experience.

    The equivalent would be Journalists getting their education in English, then learning the rest working with WORKING journalists. The ethics are really under the control of the management and editors.

    Let’s not even start about how much damage MBA’s do to businesses when they take over from experienced non-MBA administrators.

    • Mnemosyne says:

      The equivalent would be Journalists getting their education in English, then learning the rest working with WORKING journalists. The ethics are really under the control of the management and editors.

      Exactly! I am highly suspect of television talent telling shoe-leather reporters how to report. (And, no mistake, the kind of reporting that’s being done here and on several other blogs is among the best, even if the shoe-leather is virtual.) I am even more suspect of people who are “adjunct” professors of “telecommunications” doing so. Given the appalling lack of content, objectivity and fact in television “news” (and remembering the times I heard my own carefully researched stories read on local radio with no attribution), I think Mr. Hazinski might better direct his criticisms about content and ethics closer to home.

      (Oh dear. I guess you can take the girl out of the newsroom but it’s harder to take the newsroom . . . )

  9. emptywheel says:

    Though back in the earlier thread on bad gitmo propaganda, the main “Mass Communications Specialist” in question had only a two year degree.

    Though I don’t think that’s his problem.

  10. JohnJ says:

    oops, I meant “Almost without exception, every small company I have dealt with that have a new concept leading….

    I don’t want to imply I facts not in evidence. I guess that disqualifies me from reporting for a corporate media outlet.

  11. selise says:

    i call bs on prof hazinski. it’s not about professionalism or even about journalism – it’s about attempting to be a trustworthy person. i can’t spell or even reliably use the shift key – but this morning i wouldn’t put in a fucking comment that the bill reid intended to file on for cloture today was the ssci fisa bill until i’d heard it directly from a member of reid’s staff.

  12. JohnJ says:

    I should have been clearer: I am saying that “higher education” is not an automatic replacement for experience and can, in many fields, be a hinderence to creativity.

    That wasn’t meant as a slight to people with higher degrees.

    Society and science can only go forward when built on the knowledge and experience of our predecessors.

    • TheraP says:

      Sheep can get a Ph.D. by following a professor who wants such a following. And they make terrible, terrible professionals… with no creativity.

      Again… like seeks like. In grad school or anywhere.

      And I think to propose that bloggers take an ethics course is simply a way of trying to get money for your program… by insisting people study with you for the almighty certificate,

  13. selise says:

    ot – i suppose i should ask marcy…. do you have any preferences wrt the language used in your comments threads? i can hold back on the “f” bomb if you like, even when i’m especially pissed, as above.

  14. JohnJ says:

    Does anyone want to bet how “ethics training” courses chimpy and the Big Dick have taken (or at least enrolled in, then never showed)? I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these crooks like Yoo have taught those courses.

    Yeah, professional training would fix everything.

    • bmaz says:

      Heh heh! If I recall correctly, they were going to have the White House personnel submit to some kind of ethics training some time back because of some BS that had roiled up. Ah yes, here we go. apparently, it didn’t work very well…..

  15. Scarecrow says:

    I was just finishing law school when the Watergate scandals were bringing down so may of the Nixon lawyers, so naturally, the California Bar instituted an “ethics” portion to the Bar Exam. Mine was the first graduating class that had to pass the ethics section. We had to take a special class in legal ethics, which consisted mostly of conflict of interest issues and how to avoid commingling your money with the client’s money. Not one question on the bar exam had anything to do with being honest, commmitted to the rule of law, adherence to the Constitution, or being offended by torture or other war crimes. But I can assure you I never mixed my money with the my client, the State of California.

    • bmaz says:

      Outstanding! See that ethics training paid off! Our ethics portion of the bar was a multiple choice deal that a freaking monkey could have passed…

      • Scarecrow says:

        Yeah; the problem wasn’t the content of the ethics classes; the substance was fine. It’s just that true professional ethic has to grounded in respect for the rule of law and the civilizing/humanitarian effect is has over the centuries. Supposedly. So in a sense, much of law school was “ethics” traing. I remember being overwhelmed by several course, especially Constitutional law — this would have been 1973-75, when much of the casee law was explaining the humane, progressive decisions of the Warren Court — the law was the liberating process, the courts were protectors of the oppressed and a place to find justice when other branches failed, and my interships were opportunities to extend the principles. It was a different time.

        Now I think about what today’s law students are reading in Constitutional law classes. They have to rationalize the Roberts court with the decisions they’re now overturning — decades of precedents — my generation saw the courts as uplifting; today’s generation must see them as cynical or worse.

  16. TheraP says:

    Problem is… for people like bushco and cheneydom, they sit in the class trying to see how they can subvert what’s being taught. So, unfortunately, for the bad guys, the ethics course becomes a way to do thought experiments in how to hide bad behavior, do more and worse behavior. IMHO

  17. WilliamOckham says:

    I know that what I’m about to say is really picky, but when a journalism prof takes it upon himself to lecture us about the perils of citizen journalism, he’s leaving himself open. Associate Professor Hazinski needs to consider hiring a copy editor or proofreader. Principles are not principals. While I have known many ethical principals, I certainly don’t think that “adhering to the principals” should be made mandatory under any circumstances. That would lead to any number of sticky situations in the public schools and elsewhere.

    • phred says:

      WO, thanks for reminding of the old grade school saying, “the Principal is your pal” — it’s the only reason I manage to spell principal/principle correctly most of the time, and considering your point, keeping one’s relationship to the principal as a pal is certainly the best option ; )

      • bobschacht says:

        “WO, thanks for reminding of the old grade school saying, “the Principal is your pal” — it’s the only reason I manage to spell principal/principle correctly most of the time, and considering your point, keeping one’s relationship to the principal as a pal is certainly the best option ; )”

        My problem is that it is becoming apparent that few Democrats seem to have principles (sic.!) for pals.

        We pillory Republicans for being “fact free.”
        They pillory us for having no principles. When the leadership of the Democrating Party takes impeachment off the table and ignores their oath of office, this charge seems to be confirmed.

        Bob in HI

  18. Rayne says:

    I am laughing my ass off…Marcy, I have to introduce you to an adjunct journalism professor who is quite liberal with his use of the word “fuck”.

    It comes down to the individuals; I’m working along side two excellent journalism professors who demand the best from citizen journalists, who are both adjuncts, and who would take issue with Hazinski’s comments now that they’ve been exposed to online citizen journalism.

    Hazinski is a hack. Period.

  19. Hugh says:

    Mainstream journalists with a few exceptions are lazy, sloppy, unprofessional, and partisan, in other words much the same as they accuse us of being. Most of the time we try hard to get our facts right so that takes out the first three critisms made against us. As for partisanship, yes, we are but unlike the MSM we state our slant up front. We do not mask it in the guise of a pseudo-objectivity made up of nothing but regurgitated White House talking points. In other words, we seek to be honest and fact based. Traditional journalism has no idea what this means.

    The MSM also likes to point out how only they produce news, that bloggers only give their opinions about it. But as the breaking of the US Attorneys scandal or the coverage of the Libby trial showed this is increasingly incorrect. In addition, the MSM overlooks that staffs and budgets in many news organizations have been repeatedly cut in the last few years and that they too now depend on external news feeds like the AP and Reuters.

  20. WilliamOckham says:

    The thing that irritates me the most about the sanctimonious tripe emanating from the defenders of “Professional Journalism” (of which this is just the latest example) is the absolute ignorance of history. Associate Professor Hazinski would do well to venture out into that “wretched hive of scum and villainy” known as the Internet and do a search for “Joseph Pulitzer” and “William Randolph Hearst”. I’m pretty sure that 400 years after the invention of the internet, citizen journalists will have higher ethical standards than those two guys did 400 years after the invention of the printing press.