In writing about the Right to Reply bill, DJB suggested that, maybe, journalists should be licensed. He then presented a proposal, summed like a code, which, he says, should govern the conduct of licensed journalists. Like surgeons and civil engineers, DJB proposes that journalists be made to probably undergo a national licensure exam, I suppose, to obtain a license. Good. That’s a good suggestion. But, is this a sensical way of approaching the issue of “passing innuendoes as headlines”, as what the good DJB wrote to buttress his claims that, probably, journalists should be licensed?
Innuendoes, I agree, does not merit any place in a newspaper, much less, bannered as a headline. Yet, those innuendoes which sometimes are believed as facts, are, themselves, facts. Sometimes, journalists used these innuendoes as tools to ferret more information about the subject. It has worked before and it continues to work now. For example, that news about the First Gentleman’s alleged complicity in the World Bank road projects. Those can be termed “innuendoes” but upon later scrutiny, they do have basis in fact, since the accusations came from a final WB report.
Apart from this, requiring journalists to take licensure exams would definitely violate the freedom of the press and the right to self-expression. It’s like allowing the State to dictate what journalists can or cannot write. What would be the questions in that licensure exam? Will the State allow such questions as a multiple choice one, wherein journalist would choose the right word? What’s the right word to use in this case or the wrong word to use in this one? Those questions are subjective ones which, under the principle of press freedom lies solely in the domain of editorial discretion. A licensure exam is as pernicious as muzzling the press under a totalitarian regime. Of course, DJB is not saying that.
Writing, as DJB knows full well, is not an exact science, like, say medicine or engineering. It is both an art and a science, but mostly under the category of “literature”. How could anyone propose to license an artform, much the same way as licencing medical practice just to cure an alleged journalistic malpractice?
Lastly, is’nt is ridiculous for someone, say an opinion writer, to be called a licensed opinion writer? It’s like saying, hey, the State gave me permission to say my piece, how could anyone believe the column of a licensed opinion writer? It’s like saying, I believe in what you wrote because you’re licensed to write about it. Meaning, the state agrees that you can write it because the State gave you permission to write about it. And what if, the opinion writer writes a scathing denunciation of the State, will his license be revoked? Obviously, if you gave the State the power to grant a privilege (a license is not a right; it is a privilege), it also has the power of revocation.
Extending DJB’s logic, we might as well license janitors, sewage operators, swine and hog dealers, artists, craftsmen, sculptors, even my nanny.
Popularity: 1% [?]
In the end, DJB is not making an absurd argument to make a point but rather, DJB is making a point to make an absurd argument.
I did not think for a moment that he was all too prepared to defend his thesis than I thought he was just trying to know from most anyone the whole range of responses to a question seemingly innocently asked.
Now, it seems he is a hardline advocate for licensing journalists and does not at all believe it can bear upon then full enjoyment of that freedom of the press.
djb @ 6:34am, a license is a conditional grant by the state of power to act without which the act would be unlawful; whereas a franchise is a contractual arrangement to allow someone to use someone else’s property (tangible or intangible) under specified conditions and for a consideration.
djb @ 6:39am, commercial media outfits are usually juridical persons. they have all the constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of a natural person even though, perhaps, a commercial speech, e.g. advertisement of a product, enjoys a somewhat lesser protection than a non-commercial one.
it seems to me that what you are advocating in your blogpost is the licensing of certain journalists who are working for media corporations/conglomerates without requiring such a license for the individual practice of journalism. such licensing, i think, would violate the freedom of thought and expression, equal protection, and due process of both the media entity and the journalists working for them.
the media in our country can be of poor quality. it can be limited to a certain standard only suited for a country so corrupt . the quality of service can be below global standard. Since this industry is govern by an entity, public or private, the foundation of ethics and quality of service should come from the goal, mission, rules and regulations within that organization. It goes back to the management standard that I have been talking about from the very beginning. According to Global Integrity report, the media is ranked and SCORED weak.
The PRC’s rule is to regulate. It may require entities or private firms some kind of certification of excellence. An independent certifying body composed of ethical and experience journalists maybe a good idea. It can be a public organization that can be initiated thru legislations separate from the PRC. Philippine Journalist Organization. PJO???? ( for example) I can’t find a Philippine journalism site with one common goal.
And the PRC may also regulate individual practitioners by requiring individuals to have a certain number of continuing education hours specific to their area of expertise or it can be a one time ethic exam for both owners ( entity) and individual practitioner.
DJB always make sense. The point he was making can be about quality of service and ethical standard. When the country’s management is poor, there’s no way that its public servants can think right for the public and the private sector. The result is the lack of role models, the most corrupt and lowest in global ranking….
another embarrassing events for my beloved country. :)
btw, i sympathize with your purpose and have the same frustrations with certain media outlets and journalists. subject proposal just cannot have a place in our current scheme of things. it would necessitate a sea change in our social and political order.