Hacker News Reader

Comment by betenoire | Hacker News Reader

My plumber isn't allowed to call himself a plumber unless he follows the rules for plumbing. Same for my accountant, doctor, electrician, and lock pick.

I get the "free speech" argument, but I still cannot understand why we don't have rules about who can and cannot call themselves a journalist.

Coming up with these rules might be tricky, but shouldn't we try? Or have we and I'm just uninformed?

View on HN

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes journalism? Are politics bloggers journalists? Are bloggers who occasionally talk about politics journalists? Are people who livetweet a news event that they're involved in acting as journalists?

How do you safeguard the political independence of the licensing of journalists? How do you ensure that a future government doesn't abuse the licensing regulations to suppress political criticism?

In the US, how do you reconcile this with the first amendment? How can you justify silencing people because they lack the 'correct' qualifications? If the only restriction is on the title 'journalist', what stops people from calling themselves a blogger while doing exactly the same things that a journalist does?

> Are politics bloggers journalists? Are bloggers who occasionally talk about politics journalists? Are people who livetweet a news event that they're involved in acting as journalists?

No. They are respectively a blogger, a blogger, and a Twitter user.

And yet if they're at the same event I'm quite likely getting something that, in combination, is much closer to what I'd call journalism.

Then what's a "journalist"? Someone who gets paid to go do the research? "Journalist" is derived from "journal" (duh, but important) - bloggers are nothing more than online journalists. The fact that they are called "bloggers" is only because society has elected to stick with the term "blog" for an online journal.

> If the only restriction is on the title 'journalist', what stops people from calling themselves a blogger while doing exactly the same things that a journalist does?

I don't think that anyone would be proposing restricting speech in this way, but on the same note, papers such as Weekly World News maybe couldn't pump out more stories about Bat Boy while attempting to call themselves journalists...

Do WWN writers call themselves journalists? There's something to be said for what readers call journalism. It isn't the same for everybody. So, is it the journalist's responsibility to hold to a standard, or is it the audience's fault for thinking that a particular writer is a journalist?

This raises the question: can the term "journalist" even be controlled?

It can't.

good questions.

I think the methods applied are what needs accredited, not the results themselves. If an organization calls itself news or whatever nomenclature we agree to, they are claiming to follow accredited guidelines that we collectively trust.

At the end of the day, it comes down to heuristics around trust. It's not the message I want to validate, it's the means of preparation that bother me more. I can draw my own conclusions if I can trust the method.

Looking at it this way, would that resolve some of your concerns? Open auditing and accrediting do not need to involve censorship at all. You never lose the ability to say what you want, just to call yourself a "certified whatever". I dunno.

What is it about journalism that requires standards like plumbers, doctors, and accountants? More to the point, if you look at the reasons why plumbers, doctors, and locksmiths are held to standards, which ones apply to journalism?

Note also that journalism is the only one of your mentioned professions that is specifically called out for protection in the Constitution.

> More to the point, if you look at the reasons why plumbers, doctors, and locksmiths are held to standards, which ones apply to journalism?

Which ones don't?

The freedom of the press is the same thing as free speech, it applies to all of us. Correct me if you are referring to something else and I'm misunderstanding.

There are best practices in journalism, no? Disclosure, ethics, etc. How can I know if someone I rely on for information follows these rules. That's all I'm asking.

Doesn't canada do this? Aren't there requirements for calling yourself a news agency?

Which ones don't?

I contend that none of them do.

In your opinion, why is it ok to regulate lock pickers? What are the reasons that you think don't apply?

Because once your government is the arbiter of "journalism", anyone who disagrees will be marginalized?

Even the threat of it can affect what is / is not covered.

Once the government has significant power over journalism, you end up with Russian state sponsored journalism.

It's not perfect over here, and needs much improvement. Access is contingent on certain rules. It can get much worse.

Because once your government is the arbiter of "plumbing", anyone who can squeeze a pipe together but doesn't need to qualify to work with gas will be marginalised (and unemployed)?

Because once your government is the arbiter of "electrician", anyone who thinks the rules are ridiculous (they are frequently way over the top) will be marginalised (and unemployed)?

Because once your government is the arbiter of "programmer", anyone who can hack a few lines together but is only 12 and not permitted to license will be marginalised (and uneducated)?

It is getting much worse. Not only is little freedom left but it's been taken away under the guise of the exact opposite, and the façade is widely, and often violently, believed.

Skilled trades dont have a political bias in terms of skill application. There is no isis way of plumbing or dark art of wiring.

On the contrary.

Absolutely there's an ISIS of plumbling and a dark art of wiring but it comes from the opposite side to that which we expect.

I've mostly plumbed, entirely wired and partially built my own house. I can see better ways to do what I did, of course, and much much worse ways to do what I did. The boiler installer I hired was, thankfully, top notch (I am ridiculously careful with gas).

Oh and I also installed the fibre, installed an ethernet and wifi router, protected it all with a firewall and integrated a server and VPN.

And I grow about ⅔ of my food.

I do all of this without being qualified to do any more than make a coffee and people who are actually 'qualified' (or, more realistically, licensed) have mostly congratulated me on my work.

Should I have done none of these thing because Whitehall thinks erroneously that I'm too stupid? Fuck those cunts. My daughter is safe, has good friends, is well fed and well educated despite their bureaucracy, not because of it.

If anyone thinks I should not have done the plumbing or the electrification, despite being unlicensed, explain why growing my own food and configuring my own internet are OK. Or try and convince my that I should sacrifice my router to my government. And if you attempt (and you will fail utterly) to do that, prepare to be told to fuck right off.

Your pretty skilled at DIY. Your average person ime has incredible difficulty hooking up a surround sound audio system or setting up a router.

If you screw up a router install you have no internet. Screw up a diy plumbing job...

In America, you are 100% allowed to do these things to your own house because you have to live with the consequences.

The trades are here to protect other people from me asserting my skill in electrician-ining, when I have no such skill but represent to others that I do.

Who is the ISIS of plumbing? I'm confused by that assertion.

>why we don't have rules about who can and cannot call themselves a journalist.

>Coming up with these rules might be tricky, but shouldn't we try?

Russia has basically done it. Any web resource with more than 3000 monthly visitors gets the "mass media" status with additional rules and restrictions and related punishments. I'd not say that this is a good thing to say the least.

What?

I agree, but change journalist to "software developer" and see what kind of reaction you get around here.

> I agree, but change journalist to "software developer

Even better- "software engineer"

Hey, it is a protected term in Canada.

Don't got your iron ring? Not an Engineer.

I've read that this is only true for the term "Professional Engineer." Do you know of a source that backs up your claim?

For things we absolutely depend on, (like information in order to make rational choices), then hell yeah!

The thought of firmware or software in my body at some point scares the bejesus out of me, and it would bring me peace of mind to know there are accredited and audited standards for developing my pacemaker warez

I don't think that contemporary journalists are any more virtuous than a blogger. Journalism quality is terrible, and it's not because amateurs are dragging down the mean: almost everybody lives down there.

In my opinion, one of the main things that contributed to the reduction in the quality of journalism in america is the removal of what used to be called the Fairness Doctrine[0].

It was so strange to see Reagan feted as he was upon his death. One could argue that, other than Nixon, he did more to accelerate the downfall of America than any other president.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Journalists attempt to tell the truth, gets second sources, endures fact checking, and correct any mistakes made.

Pundits are just loud mouths. Truthiness is irrelevant.

Propagandists knowingly lie, distort, omit, whatever.

Journalists also focus on facts - who, what, when - and avoid bias. Something that we've seen has gone out the window at what used to be legitimate news sources.

I have no problem with opinion pieces or punditry, but don't try to disguise it as journalism.

That would not really help, since at the high end of information newspapers die by a thousand cuts. A journalist simply can not compete with Schneier's or DJB's blog on cryptography, he can not compete with Carrol on theoretical physics etc. So it is not only that newspapers do not have a good business model for the internet, it is also that the internet gives you better alternatives for those topics you are actually interested in.

Fantastic idea. It's a profession, and actually there are rules on who can write for newspapers - it's just that the owners of newspapers piss in the soup so much with their biases that it loses any value. So maybe fewer journalists and fewer newspapers - some form of public service guarantee otherwise you canny t be a newspaper just an entertainment magazine

Perhaps we should have strict rules about who can call himself an engineer?

I don't agree with the parent about journalists (or that software developers should be licensed in general). But I would point out that, especially for engineers involved in signing off on certain things from a regulatory perspective, there is a Professional Engineer license that's required for certain jobs. I took and passed an Engineer-in-Training exam at one point because had I continued in my then job path I'd have wanted to become a PE once I'd the requisite amount of time.

Add to that , journalists may get fired but dont go to jail for spreading lies.

There is a law on the books for that, though I don't know of any journalists who have been prosecuted:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

We don't always need to apply an idea in the abstract to everything in the world. There is a big difference between someone who makes CRUD apps for a living, and someone who writes firmware for a pacemaker. No need to paint with such broad strokes.

Such rules already exist and are widely ignored.

We do in Canada.

Names are only protected if there is an associated license or certification process. These processes are generally in place to insure that your doctor/lawyer/electrician is competent enough to do their job, there are major ramifications if they fail to do their job correctly and they can be punished by the system, take away their license, if they fail to meet accepted standards. The way I see journalism is your sources and reputation is what gives you credibility in place of a license, do a bad job and people are less likely to listen to what you have to say.

Cynically, I think it's because the constitution implies journalists freedoms that certain public figures would prefer the general citizenry not have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com