Time for Federal Licensing of Journalists

 

shutterstock_276576074It’s overdue. Most important jobs that involve the public have standards — not any old schlemiel can be a brain surgeon or a cosmetologist, you know. A federal credential would not only ensure reporters are vetted so they’re fair and accurate, it would make it easier to deal with those who practice journalism in unorthodox ways.

For example: At many public events, there’s a space for the journalists, so you know who’s reporting on the event; they have tags around their neck, indicating they are legitimate.

But some people think they can just flout the rules and write about something without the necessary tags, and so you get stories like this:

A Donald Trump campaign staffer and a private security guard removed a POLITICO reporter from a campaign rally here on Thursday evening for reporting at the event without the campaign’s permission.

A campaign staffer spotted the reporter typing on a laptop outside of the press pen at the San Jose Convention Center and asked the reporter, who was attending on a general admission ticket, if he had press credentials. The Trump campaign has refused to credential the reporter for multiple events.

That’s how it should be, right? It’s obvious this guy was trying to write something about the campaign, and permission had not been granted. He didn’t get the message. If you don’t have the proper laminated badge around your neck, what makes you think you can write about something?

It would make it easier to do something about those James O’Keefe types, too. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 172 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Penfold Member
    Penfold
    @Penfold

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    drlorentz:

    James Lileks: Think of the children.

    Seriously?

    No, Lileks is of course riffing. He may actually be the most conservative of the big-name Ricochet muckity-mucks. Peter Robinson is more likely to engage on behalf of a slighted conservative point, whereas Lileks will come off the top rope once he’s had enough.

    I’m picturing James in a wrestler’s leotard, headgear and boots jumping off the top rope. Thanks for nothing BDB.

    • #31
  2. Pencilvania Inactive
    Pencilvania
    @Pencilvania

    I’m not a journalist, credentialed or otherwise – but you guys are arguing about an article where not one name, referencing anyone who actually participated in this event, appears.  Isn’t the first question of the 5W’s – WHO? Aren’t you the least bit curious who this reporter is, journalist friends?

    The article also says:

    The Trump campaign has refused to credential the reporter for multiple events.

    Shouldn’t you ask – WHY?

    • #32
  3. Liz Member
    Liz
    @Liz

    Tim H.:We would absolutely be criticizing the Clinton campaign if it pulled something like this. Heck, it HAS pulled things like this, and we’ve rightly jumped on its case. So let’s not do a 180 and act like there’s no problem, no story, and besides, they had it coming, when a campaign on our side does it. We have principles, and we don’t throw them away because they’re violated by somebody with an (R) after his name.

    James has pointed out a…let’s say “regrettable” incident Trump’s campaign had with the press. Here on Ricochet, saying that Hillary does it, too, doesn’t work as a defense, because none of us are on her side. (And because it’s a tu quoque fallacy.) This is not a left vs. right debate here, and we’ve made lots of criticism of Hillary’s abuse of the press for a long time.

    I was a big critic of the Secret Service’s heavy-handed treatment of citizens during Bill Clinton’s administration. But I was still able to criticize them when it was done under the Bush administration. (Remember their investigation of Michael Ramirez for a cartoon?) That’s because I believe this in principle, rather than for partisan reasons.

    If we don’t hold the Trump campaign to the same standards we do Hillary’s, they’re not really “standards.”

    I would like to highlight this outstanding comment.

    • #33
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Tim H.: James has pointed out a…let’s say “regrettable” incident Trump’s campaign had with the press. Here on Ricochet, saying that Hillary does it, too, doesn’t work as a defense, because none of us are on her side. (And because it’s a tu quoque fallacy.) This is not a left vs. right debate here, and we’ve made lots of criticism of Hillary’s abuse of the press for a long time.

    iWe: Remember that this administration keeps talking about prosecuting people who question global warming. How far behind is suppression of blogs? Especially if we can do it with a reasonable-sounding explanation: “The Fairness Doctrine” or “Press Equality” or “Hate Speech.” Trump himself has said that libel laws should be rewritten to make it harder for people to print whatever they like.

    Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! what the smart guys said!

    • #34
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Tim H.: I was a big critic of the Secret Service’s heavy-handed treatment of citizens during Bill Clinton’s administration. But I was still able to criticize them when it was done under the Bush administration. (Remember their investigation of Michael Ramirez for a cartoon?) That’s because I believe this in principle, rather than for partisan reasons.

    No, I didn’t know about that. And the reason I didn’t vote for Bush was because he didn’t say that  the Clinton-style abuses wouldn’t occur on his watch.

    • #35
  6. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    We still haven’t a credible answer to Ball’s reasonable inquiry?

    Where was the event held? Who paid for the event?

    Always remember the golden rule: Thou who has the gold makes the rule.

    If this was in hall rented by the campaign they set the ground rules and admit at their discretion. Nobody is required to attend this event.

    • #36
  7. Pencilvania Inactive
    Pencilvania
    @Pencilvania

    Oh, I guess I know why they didn’t put the journo’s name in the article.  Because then someone could research that reporter’s record and the whole article would fall apart like a cheap Michelle Fields suit.

    • #37
  8. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Xennady:The so-called press has essentially been nothing more than democrat operatives with bylines for generations.

    They seem to expect that this will never bring consequences, and never should.

    My sympathy is non-existent.

    Hoorah for Xennady!

    James, we should allow, is making a principled point.  His own integrity is immense, unblemished. But we are in a war for the future of this country and therefore the world.  The vast majority of journos (“Democrat Media Complex” as Breitbart called it) are enemy combatants.  There’s always collateral damage and losses of freedom in war.  Soldier on!

    Xennady’s point that Politico’s combatants think their own corrupt tactics should be immune from retribution is smack-on.  It’s self-serving falderal.  Pay it no attention and toss the jerk out each and every time.

    How many journalists played by the rules and reported whatever the hell they wanted?  I don’t know the number, but does anyone think it wasn’t a large number?  Does anyone think this one journo getting tossed made any substantive difference to the fact the press (of every ideological stripe) is able to do their work without any significant impediment?  I’ve not heard that argument made by anyone.

    That Politico chump had the temerity to quote … wait for it … Dan Rather!  Seriously … read the article!  He should be in jail for that act of brazen obnoxiousness alone. (Okay, jailing journos is probably uncalled for . . . but seriously . . . Rather!?!  And there was no trigger warning!)

    • #38
  9. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    drlorentz:

    James Lileks: Think of the children.

    Seriously?

    No, Lileks is of course riffing. He may actually be the most conservative of the big-name Ricochet muckity-mucks. Peter Robinson is more likely to engage on behalf of a slighted conservative point, whereas Lileks will come off the top rope once he’s had enough.

    Ya.  I started out at the title, thinking, … WHAT? By the end of his post, I got it, but it took that long to get it for sure.  Lileks definitely lured me into reading this.  Then he made his coup de gras.  Well done.

    • #39
  10. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    James, it might be said, somewhat dislikes Donald Trump. At least I am just recently getting that feeling. Rrrrright! Sometimes it seems that The Donald could jump off a bridge to save a little kitty cat and James would give Trump an F for form. Not enough arch in his back as he swan dived to the rescue. Every comment is a curse so anytime James is the author, I know the bottom line before I’ve read the first sentence. Come on James, give me something positive maybe once a month so I have to guess a little before reading your post.

    But that aside, the vagaries of this jab leave little on which to comment. I guess we are discussing big government and free speech and next we’ll be discussing whether this is yet another example of Donald Trump the Fascist. Where is Zubrin when we need him?

    • #40
  11. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    cdor:James, it might be said, somewhat dislikes Donald Trump. At least I am just recently getting that feeling. Rrrrright! Sometimes it seems that The Donald could jump off a bridge to save a little kitty cat and James would give Trump an F for form. Not enough arch in his back as he swan dived to the rescue. Every comment is a curse so anytime James is the author, I know the bottom line before I’ve read the first sentence. Come on James, give me something positive maybe once a month so I have to guess a little before reading your post.

    But that aside, the vagaries of this jab leave little on which to comment. I guess we are discussing big government and free speech and next we’ll be discussing whether this is yet another example of Donald Trump the Fascist. Where is Zubrin when we need him?

    Skolkovo.

    • #41
  12. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Eugene Kriegsmann: We would absolutely be criticizing the Clinton campaign if it pulled something like this. … So let’s not do a 180 and act like there’s no problem, no story, and besides, they had it coming, when a campaign on our side does it. We have principles ….

    You make it sound like this is all some Marquess of Queensberry boxing match.  Remember what General Colin Powell said (very roughly): We aren’t seeking a fair fight; this is war and we intend to win.

    If you don’t have the stomach for roughing up your opponents, do you also imagine that’s going to be reciprocated? Which side got egged and punched out the other day?  With all due respect, if you just want to lose with your moral vanity on display you are part of that GOP which was just decimated by a guy who never held public office.

    Trump is going to win, but only by tossing Romney’s Always-Play-Nice rule book in the dust bin.  Obama won because he never, ever accepted this nice-guy premise.  You seem to have learned nothing from Obama’s two-term success.

    And of all the things to get twisted panties over, this jerk violated the rules every other journo obeyed. How is Trump to blame for that?

    Play for keeps or watch Hillary add two more Obama terms, including 3-4 SCOTUS appointments.  Those are your options. Choose wisely.

    • #42
  13. Dave_L Inactive
    Dave_L
    @Dave-L

    Based on the author’s tweet, it looks like he himself was the one asked to leave by Trump’s campaign.  Anyone know anything about Ben Schreckinger?

    And while we are talking about journalistic standards, what do generally accepted journalistic practices say about writing an article with one’s self as the subject without identifying that fact?  I honestly don’t know, just asking.

    • #43
  14. Muleskinner Member
    Muleskinner
    @Muleskinner

    Not sure what the licensing / credentialing process would look like, tutoring, or neutering?

    • #44
  15. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    I was sure this was a put-on until I started reading the comments from people I respect here. I’m still wondering.

    I’m with Xennady.

    And I’m all for a tit-for-tat in this environment. I’m all for freedom of the press. They are allowed to report on their journalist operative being tossed out of the event. It’s not like we are being denied dozens of reports and this guy or gal has some extra-special insights.

    If it’s against the rules for a boxer to hit below the belt, and one guy has been winning using that tactic for years and getting away with it, despite the complaints to the boxing commission, perhaps it’s time to retaliate in kind and hope someone notices. In the meantime, you aren’t always losing bouts.

    No sympathy whatsoever.

    Corey Lewandowski should file for a restraining order on that baiting victim Michelle Fields too. She’s going to come to the next Trump event in 6-inch heels and a tight skirt and if she gets nudged by anyone while trying to get close to Trump she’ll fall over and claim assault.

    • #45
  16. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    As someone who always has a credential around his neck there are plenty of arguments to be made for safety, security and just plain unwieldliness of having 150 “citizen journalists” show up for an event.

    I was responsible for getting my camera crews vetted and credentialed for a 1984 campaign stop by President Reagan. Back then equipment was huge and cumbersome. All of us were taken to a secure area at the airport where our cameras and tape decks were inspected and we had to prove full functionality.

    Now people are shooting stories with cameras they paid $299 for at Best Buy. Does a campaign need to make room for the most read blogger in Minot?

    • #46
  17. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Dave_L: And while we are talking about journalistic standards, what do generally accepted journalistic practices say about writing an article with one’s self as the subject without identifying that fact? I honestly don’t know, just asking.

    When it comes to this notion of journalistic standards, I have two words that tell you all you need to know: Katie Couric.

    • #47
  18. Dave_L Inactive
    Dave_L
    @Dave-L

    Franco:

    If it’s against the rules for a boxer to hit below the belt, and one guy has been winning using that tactic for years and getting away with it, despite the complaints to the boxing commission, perhaps it’s time to retaliate in kind and hope someone notices. In the meantime, you aren’t always losing bouts.

    ^ This!!!

    • #48
  19. Mr. Dart Inactive
    Mr. Dart
    @MrDart

    Politico’s Schreckinger got the story he wanted.  It neatly fits the “Trump is a bully” narrative promoted by the legacy media.  Ricochet even helps out by pitching that narrative to those in the “center-right” audience who don’t support the Republican candidate.

    Trump, however, is a master at this game.  Almost a year ago he vaulted to the lead by picking an issue that the majority of voters supported but neither political party addressed to their liking.  Now Mexican flag-waving/ American flag-burning violent thugs are driving voters by the millions to his side as they beat up Trump supporters and surround and throw eggs at young women.

    Politico gives him still another victory.  “Crooked Hillary’s media pals don’t think the rules apply to them.  Just like she didn’t follow the rules about her e-mail security they think they can break the rules about coming into our private, paid-for rallies! They’re slime!” 

    If the voting public held the media in high esteem it could hurt him, but they don’t. Among Republicans and many Independents the general media is seen as Democratic Party handmaidens.  And, today, Bernie supporters see them as pimping for Hillary.  Not much downside for Donald on this one.

    Personally, in an age where everyone with a smartphone and a twitter account is a news-gatherer, I see no need for designated press areas. But if those are the existing rules, follow them.

    • #49
  20. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Afternoon Mr. Lileks,

    I think credibility is the most important characteristic of a journalism, yet I have not seen journalists get upset when one of their colleagues cheats and by getting caught cheating undercuts the reputation of all of journalism.  Where were the journalists indignant at the Dan Rather movie, bitter that their most important asset credibility had been eaten away by this jerk, Rather. Who was a know liar since the JFK assassination. When a pool report of 41 being shown a card scanner which can even read a crumpled card is turned into the headline that Bush is so out of touch that he has never seen a card scanner, where were the reporters who knew this was a lie who protested and set the record straight?  When Couric pulls a Jon Stewart with her “collected pauses”, where are the reporters who collectively say she’s out.  That reporters have tolerated the deceitful practices and reporting of other reporters, reduces my sympathy when they complain the their journalistic rights are being forcefully limited.

    • #50
  21. Autistic License Coolidge
    Autistic License
    @AutisticLicense

    Well, Ok, two things: Any attempt to monkey with the First Amendment will result in a weakened First, so that’s a bad thing and obvious to most folks on our side of the aisle. Which is what James is talking about.(May I call him James? He won’t have me dragged out back will he?)

    Second, Trump is distasteful and repugnant because he behaves as badly as a Berkeley leftist, talking gibberish to justify his actions, disrespecting others, and engaging in behavior conservatives find off putting. He’s a kind of Bullworth fantasy. Or Code Pink in Republican drag.  We shouldn’t applaud too loudly. We’ve often wanted someone to give the media a taste of their own medicine, but doing such stuff in reality is acting out.  Reality TV should stay TV.

    • #51
  22. Dave_L Inactive
    Dave_L
    @Dave-L

    James Lileks:“The Media” in general is not “The Media” in specific.

    True, James, but unfortunately after reading two decades of irresponsible journalism by “The Media”, I no longer give credence to individual journalists just because they are a “journalist”, but rather require a period of demonstrated quality delivery of their craft before I read them without constantly looking between the lines for sins of omission.  It’s probably not fair for those few who are doing it right, but it’s also not fair that I have to put so much effort into cross-checking everything I read these days.  Not that my opinion matters much.

    The same goes for politicians these days, especially Republicans.  (I expect Democrats to be dishonest.)

    • #52
  23. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Autistic License:Well, Ok, two things: Any attempt to monkey with the First Amendment will result in a weakened First, so that’s a bad thing and obvious to most folks on our side of the aisle. Which is what James is talking about.

    Second, Trump is . . . Code Pink in Republican drag.

    This is nonsense and I doubt James would agree with it.

    Unless you can demonstrate that this event includes the federal government’s suppression of speech, please admit the First Amendment isn’t remotely at issue here.

    As for your ludicrous Code Pink comparison, I’m anxious to hear of when/where Trump disrupted Congressional Hearings and the like by covertly infiltrating Harpies who scream nonsense accusations so as to gain publicity for themselves.

    This sort of rhetoric makes the #NeverTrump crowd the rightful recipient of scorn.  And rightfully causes suspicion about its motives.

    But since you already confessed you are on the other side of the aisle, it’s no longer a mere suspicion.

    • #53
  24. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    HVTs: Unless you can demonstrate that this event includes the federal government’s suppression of speech, please admit the First Amendment isn’t remotely at issue here.

    We’re there Secret Service agents involved?

    • #54
  25. Dave_L Inactive
    Dave_L
    @Dave-L

    EJHill:

    HVTs: Unless you can demonstrate that this event includes the federal government’s suppression of speech, please admit the First Amendment isn’t remotely at issue here.

    We’re there Secret Service agents involved?

    I suspect the article would have mentioned it if there were.  Oh yes…

    • #55
  26. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    No,no,no.Everyone already has a license,it’s called the first   Amendment .

    • #56
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    EJHill: Now people are shooting stories with cameras they paid $299 for at Best Buy. Does a campaign need to make room for the most read blogger in Minot?

    From Minot?  Yes, it should, even though there are far too many leftwingers in Minot.

    • #57
  28. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    EJHill:

    HVTs: Unless you can demonstrate that this event includes the federal government’s suppression of speech, please admit the First Amendment isn’t remotely at issue here.

    We’re there Secret Service agents involved?

    Maybe.  But like everyone else mentioned in the story, they wish to remain anonymous.

    • #58
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HVTs: Unless you can demonstrate that this event includes the federal government’s suppression of speech, please admit the First Amendment isn’t remotely at issue here.

    The federal government wasn’t doing it, and the First Amendment is at issue.

    • #59
  30. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    EJHill:

    HVTs: Unless you can demonstrate that this event includes the federal government’s suppression of speech, please admit the First Amendment isn’t remotely at issue here.

    We’re there Secret Service agents involved?

    No.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.