This was borne of the dust-up I got mixed up in with my very first posts over in the "bloggers in the press box thread."
But it's an entirely different topic and deserves it's own thread. I also believe it's a very big issue that could do a lot to help the profession: industry-wide self regulation.
The problem: no matter what the industry thinks of itself, there is a huge, huge, credibility gap. The public simply does not trust the media. There have plenty of reasons not to, too, when you look at the many abuses by journalists out there. Mainly, the media is a completely unregulated industry that answers to nobody, and when people abuse their power, it makes all of us look bad.
All the folks media like to put under the microscope at least have to answer to somebody: politicians put their ass on the line every election; businesses must answer to stockholders and, even more importantly, must battle it out everyday in the marketplace; the investment industry (a popular media target) is hugely regulated to the point that people have their careers tossed in the dumper each and every day for seemingly minor infractions.
Most of the standards set by the investment industry comes from a self-regulating organization with some teeth, the NASD (In between newspaper jobs I worked several years in the communications department of a big finance firm ... the standards these guys are held to are pretty daunting ... fill in paperwork the wrong way and you can lose your job.)
The media?
We have the power to ruin lives, yet answer to nobody. It creates huge issues of trust.
I think the industry needs an SRO - a self-regulating organization. This would be a collection of individuals from various elements of the media who attempt to bring some sort of standards to an industry with none and provide a place for the public (and media, too) to file grievances, point out infractions like plagiarism, etc. Right now, a big-name reporter can get caught plagiarizing numerous times before their employer acts. The public, meanwhile, has nowhere to turn when they find obvious infractions and breeches of journalistic ethics.
It would go a long way toward giving the media some credibility. Right now, just about everyone in the world must answer to somebody. Then they see an all-powerful media that answers to nobody. It's a huge reason for the credibility gap.
Certainly, the government shouldn't be in the media regulation business. So, for the health of the industry, I think we need to do it ourselves. It would do nothing but give the industry some credibility in the eyes of a public that simply does not trust the profession of journalism.
But it's an entirely different topic and deserves it's own thread. I also believe it's a very big issue that could do a lot to help the profession: industry-wide self regulation.
The problem: no matter what the industry thinks of itself, there is a huge, huge, credibility gap. The public simply does not trust the media. There have plenty of reasons not to, too, when you look at the many abuses by journalists out there. Mainly, the media is a completely unregulated industry that answers to nobody, and when people abuse their power, it makes all of us look bad.
All the folks media like to put under the microscope at least have to answer to somebody: politicians put their ass on the line every election; businesses must answer to stockholders and, even more importantly, must battle it out everyday in the marketplace; the investment industry (a popular media target) is hugely regulated to the point that people have their careers tossed in the dumper each and every day for seemingly minor infractions.
Most of the standards set by the investment industry comes from a self-regulating organization with some teeth, the NASD (In between newspaper jobs I worked several years in the communications department of a big finance firm ... the standards these guys are held to are pretty daunting ... fill in paperwork the wrong way and you can lose your job.)
The media?
We have the power to ruin lives, yet answer to nobody. It creates huge issues of trust.
I think the industry needs an SRO - a self-regulating organization. This would be a collection of individuals from various elements of the media who attempt to bring some sort of standards to an industry with none and provide a place for the public (and media, too) to file grievances, point out infractions like plagiarism, etc. Right now, a big-name reporter can get caught plagiarizing numerous times before their employer acts. The public, meanwhile, has nowhere to turn when they find obvious infractions and breeches of journalistic ethics.
It would go a long way toward giving the media some credibility. Right now, just about everyone in the world must answer to somebody. Then they see an all-powerful media that answers to nobody. It's a huge reason for the credibility gap.
Certainly, the government shouldn't be in the media regulation business. So, for the health of the industry, I think we need to do it ourselves. It would do nothing but give the industry some credibility in the eyes of a public that simply does not trust the profession of journalism.
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
