Should we license journalists?
Indiana has over 40 licensed professions - everything from licensed doctors and nurses to licensed lawyers and hypnotists. Every year these professionals pony up money and ask permission from the state to call themselves professional whatevers.
The justification for this licensing process and its continuing education requirements is to ensure quality service to the public. In effect, when you listen to or hire a state licensed professional, the state certifies that the professional has met certain minimum standards in educational achievement, board certification and the taking of continuing education courses.
This way, the logic goes, the public is ensured that everyone who holds themselves out, for example, as a doctor or lawyer or teacher will meet minimum medical, legal and teaching standards.
If government can set a meaningful minimum standard for professional services, shouldn't we want every profession to be licensed? Midwives were added to the list a couple years ago. Roofers, lawn cutters, gutter installers and car mechanics could be next. Why are we waiting? If licensing serves the public, we should be demanding that all professionals be licensed.
This includes journalists.
Otherwise, how do we ensure that what we read in newspapers, magazines and the Internet meets professional standards? The lack of standards is why Indiana University basketball coach Kelvin Sampson recently closed practices to the public, after a nasty comment he once made to a player showed up on the Internet. (see "I.U.'s Sampson closes practice, blaming 'dumb Internet'"). If journalists can't police themselves, then they need to be licensed and policed.
Plus, it can be easily argued that journalism offers society greater risks than most professions that the state licenses. Journalistic misfeasance and prejudices can affect millions of people, whereas lawyers and doctors generally only decide the fate of their clients and patients. If journalists are so important and risky to us, why don't lawmakers license them for our protection?
Journalists' standard answer is that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and exempts them from licensing. But I can point to the Sixth Amendment that guarantees my choice of legal counsel, regardless if my counsel is certified by the state bar, but tell that to politically partial judges today who allow only state licensed attorneys, like me, to make arguments in court.
Fact is, the First Amendment is as legally flimsy as the Sixth. It just has more political clout. It would be dying just like the Sixth Amendment if it didn't have the support of most journalists, who bang its drum.
If I licensed journalists, I would require them to know and respect all the Bill of Rights to the same extent as they do the self-serving First Amendment. Journalists' lack of vigilance over growing government and our declining individual rights will likely doom our civilization. If there was ever a reason to license journalists, it is this.
But few people seriously are demanding this, and I am not one of them. There's a good reason for this: Licensing doesn't ensure or improve quality of service. A mechanic doesn't need a license to fix a car. A doctor or lawyer with a license can botch a job just as much as someone without these credentials.
Private accreditation associations and referral services, such as Angie's List in Indianapolis, offer consumers more useful information than the state's stamp of approval provides.
We have licensing not because the public demands it, but because professional associations conspired for their members to be licensed and regulated. (When I use the word "conspired," I mean criminally conspired). That way they can exclude others without their qualifications, or with different ones, from competing against them for business.
Licensing is a neat little scam. It works for the licensed professionals because economics is economics. If they can control their supply through licensing and the certification of trade schools, then they can keep their fees artificially high and protect their status in the community.
This leads to a simple maxim of licensing: If there's a shortage of doctors, teachers and nurses, you can always blame the doctors, teachers and nurses. Licensing is a state protection racket for these professionals. Car mechanics and gutter installers would seek state licensing, too, if they were better organized and more politically astute.
This isn't to say that licensed teachers and nurses and doctors aren't good. It's only to say that it's not licensing that makes teachers and nurses and doctors good. Licensing is not needed to maintain or improve their professional quality. Licensing hurts professional quality by graying standards and stifling or eliminating competition.
Licensing would play particular havoc with journalism. Just think how expensive or poorly reported news would be today if journalists were licensed and in limited supply.
The public is just as qualified to shop for professional services as it is to decide which newspaper, magazine or blog to read, without providers being state licensed. One framed certificate from the state should mean very little to a consumer compared to the other certificates of education and achievement on a professional's walls.
Only competition through the repeal of licensing ensures the best overall quality of services. We have the best quality journalism in America because journalism is not licensed and is competitive. Let's raise the bar and demand this standard from all professionals.
The justification for this licensing process and its continuing education requirements is to ensure quality service to the public. In effect, when you listen to or hire a state licensed professional, the state certifies that the professional has met certain minimum standards in educational achievement, board certification and the taking of continuing education courses.
This way, the logic goes, the public is ensured that everyone who holds themselves out, for example, as a doctor or lawyer or teacher will meet minimum medical, legal and teaching standards.
If government can set a meaningful minimum standard for professional services, shouldn't we want every profession to be licensed? Midwives were added to the list a couple years ago. Roofers, lawn cutters, gutter installers and car mechanics could be next. Why are we waiting? If licensing serves the public, we should be demanding that all professionals be licensed.
This includes journalists.
Otherwise, how do we ensure that what we read in newspapers, magazines and the Internet meets professional standards? The lack of standards is why Indiana University basketball coach Kelvin Sampson recently closed practices to the public, after a nasty comment he once made to a player showed up on the Internet. (see "I.U.'s Sampson closes practice, blaming 'dumb Internet'"). If journalists can't police themselves, then they need to be licensed and policed.
Plus, it can be easily argued that journalism offers society greater risks than most professions that the state licenses. Journalistic misfeasance and prejudices can affect millions of people, whereas lawyers and doctors generally only decide the fate of their clients and patients. If journalists are so important and risky to us, why don't lawmakers license them for our protection?
Journalists' standard answer is that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and exempts them from licensing. But I can point to the Sixth Amendment that guarantees my choice of legal counsel, regardless if my counsel is certified by the state bar, but tell that to politically partial judges today who allow only state licensed attorneys, like me, to make arguments in court.
Fact is, the First Amendment is as legally flimsy as the Sixth. It just has more political clout. It would be dying just like the Sixth Amendment if it didn't have the support of most journalists, who bang its drum.
If I licensed journalists, I would require them to know and respect all the Bill of Rights to the same extent as they do the self-serving First Amendment. Journalists' lack of vigilance over growing government and our declining individual rights will likely doom our civilization. If there was ever a reason to license journalists, it is this.
But few people seriously are demanding this, and I am not one of them. There's a good reason for this: Licensing doesn't ensure or improve quality of service. A mechanic doesn't need a license to fix a car. A doctor or lawyer with a license can botch a job just as much as someone without these credentials.
Private accreditation associations and referral services, such as Angie's List in Indianapolis, offer consumers more useful information than the state's stamp of approval provides.
We have licensing not because the public demands it, but because professional associations conspired for their members to be licensed and regulated. (When I use the word "conspired," I mean criminally conspired). That way they can exclude others without their qualifications, or with different ones, from competing against them for business.
Licensing is a neat little scam. It works for the licensed professionals because economics is economics. If they can control their supply through licensing and the certification of trade schools, then they can keep their fees artificially high and protect their status in the community.
This leads to a simple maxim of licensing: If there's a shortage of doctors, teachers and nurses, you can always blame the doctors, teachers and nurses. Licensing is a state protection racket for these professionals. Car mechanics and gutter installers would seek state licensing, too, if they were better organized and more politically astute.
This isn't to say that licensed teachers and nurses and doctors aren't good. It's only to say that it's not licensing that makes teachers and nurses and doctors good. Licensing is not needed to maintain or improve their professional quality. Licensing hurts professional quality by graying standards and stifling or eliminating competition.
Licensing would play particular havoc with journalism. Just think how expensive or poorly reported news would be today if journalists were licensed and in limited supply.
The public is just as qualified to shop for professional services as it is to decide which newspaper, magazine or blog to read, without providers being state licensed. One framed certificate from the state should mean very little to a consumer compared to the other certificates of education and achievement on a professional's walls.
Only competition through the repeal of licensing ensures the best overall quality of services. We have the best quality journalism in America because journalism is not licensed and is competitive. Let's raise the bar and demand this standard from all professionals.
posted by Kurt St. Angelo at 8:01 AM
2 comments
