I admit, I get pissed off about irresponsible journalism and I think there should be ramifications for it. This, however, is not the answer.
Unless he’s suggesting politicans who lie or manipulate also get tossed in the slammer, then we can start talking. But violating the public trust is hardly the sole domain of journalists. The worst part is this crackpot is going to spark a whole new wave of “we must defend the free press” and the legitimate elements of his argument (the fact that irresponsible journalism is dangerous and unacceptable) will get tossed aside.
Oh well, slow and bloggy wins the race, right?
UPDATE: As one helpful commenter has already noted below, Mayes has retracted his statement.
Unless he’s suggesting politicans who lie or manipulate also get tossed in the slammer, then we can start talking.
Please don’t joke about that, Joe.
I know you have a high opinion of what journalists should be, but putting them on the same level as elected politicians is just wrong. Journalists may serve the public, but they are not public servants. Neither are they a priesthood. Nor are they a profession like medicine or the law, with set standards for accrediting members and punishing malpractice.
And nor should they be.
A journalist is only an ordinary citizen with the free time to inform others and the printing presses (or, in your case, the website) to do so. That is what makes Colin Mayes’s suggestion so monstrous. If journalists can be locked up for saying things that some civic official concludes to be misleading or dangerous, so can we all.
And who will decide when the press is being irresponsible? Will it be Parliament? The courts? You? That road leads only to Jacobin tyranny.
Please be careful of praising Colin Mayes through faint damnation. I agree that grievously irresponsible journalism can be “dangerous and unacceptable,” as you put it, but the law is and should be powerless to stop that. I’m extremely worried about what you mean by “ramifications” for bad journalism. Like what?
Phronetic,
I would disagree with your claim that “a journalist is only an ordinary citizen with the free time to inform others and the printing presses (or, in your case, the website) to do so.”
I think the very act of using that press or website denotes a sense of extra responsibility that the average citizen talking to their friends in a bar doesn’t have.
Historians don’t rely on bar conversations; people’s reputations aren’t done irreparable harm during bar conversations (at least not on a large scale).
The fact is that journalists, by the nature of their work, owe society an extra degree of due diligence to make sure they do their job well.
That said, I certainly don’t agree with Mayes suggestion. You correctly noted my joke and I appreciate that. As for what I mean by “ramifications,” I certainly don’t mean anything near what he’s suggesting. I just think journalists too often rely on the ‘we can correct it tomorrow’ mentality.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060331.wtorymedia0331/EmailBNStory/National/
I think the very act of using that press or website denotes a sense of extra responsibility that the average citizen talking to their friends in a bar doesn’t have.
Perhaps you’ve missed my point, Joe. I never meant to imply that journalism, a form of public and permanent speech, is comparable to bar-room chitchat, a form of private and impermanent speech. My point was that there is no easy way to single out journalism from other forms of public speech.
Whether you’re writing a column in the Ottawa Citizen or handing out photocopied leaflets on Parliament Hill, your purpose is the same: to speak to your fellow citizens about an issue of civic importance and let them judge for themselves. Sometimes your message is plain and factual; sometimes it’s an insightful opinion; sometimes it’s biased; sometimes it’s just false. But it is always subject to the same laws that govern all forms of acceptable public speech: don’t defame people, don’t incite hatred, et cetera.
Now, you may believe (and I would agree) that over and above those legal limits on public speech, there are moral limits too. The two kinds of limits are totally different; one has to do with enforceable individual rights, the other with voluntary civic duties.
Some news organizations choose to impose moral limits on themselves, through codes of conduct or press-council memberships, but these are only voluntary guidelines. You, however, are talking about a universal set of moral rules for good journalism.
I think it’s an admirable goal, but to achieve it, you need to demonstrate somehow that journalists are a separate class of public actors deserving of special treatment. And I just don’t think that’s true.
The Vancouver Sun published the letter in question with their story on it. While we’re on the subject I think if you are going to write such a story publishing the letter is good to give people context. Most of the time people have to except the media at its word. In this case they could actually display what the fuss was about so good job Vancouver Sun.
In addition to arguing in favour of jailing journalists, (I don’t like it when the media paints all Conservatives with the same brush, but this guy really isn’t helping the we’re not facists cry) but I digress.
In addition to that having now read the letter I would like to fine him for my most hated of writing faux pas misuse of the exclamation mark.
Here’s another question, having heard what we have heard about the PMO wanting to screen MP’s letter writing efforts you have to wonder if this made it through the PMO.