Doctors are required to obtain a license to practice medicine. Lawyers are required to pass the bar to practice law. Journalists are – well, journalists aren’t required to be licensed in any way to practice journalism. Yet, each profession directly impacts citizens’ lives.
There isn’t much denial that the press in the United States has been granted expansive leeway to operate. Yet, much of the criticisms against the press come from their failure to perform their function in society. In other words, they aren’t living up to the role they should be fulfilling.
But the question is, what is that role?
In the seminal 1971 Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote:
“… the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”
Justice Black’s definition could be interpreted as one definition of the role of the press, particularly noted when he wrote “the press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” His definition lacks partisanship, something those who favor objectivity will appreciate.
Another question that must be asked is, does the press play a role in our democracy? If so, what is its role?
According to Black, would not the prime motivation of the press be to ensure that citizens who read, watch and/or listen to their content are fully informed, not only of the operation of public officials and offices, but the issues crafted that affect them? In fact, given the near ubiquitous presence of private individuals and entities (e.g. corporations) and their influence on said public officials, offices and issues, wouldn’t the press’ role also carry over to enlightening the citizenry of their involvement, as well?
Until the role of the press is defined, licensing journalists who make up the press is impossible. Of course, the question immediately arises: Why would journalists need to be licensed?
Journalism schools around the nation teach students reporting and editing skills, ethics and applicable law; what is lacking is purpose. If, for example, Black’s definition were to be made a standard to aspire to in those schools, where citizens, members of the press and the press itself would have a clear idea of what to expect, a system of licensing could come into effect, ensuring a press with a centralized modus operandi.
If journalists or certain press were not living up to Black’s standard, citizens and licensing boards – much like those for doctors and lawyers – would be able to hold them accountable for failing to serve “the governed, not the governors.” Of course, that will only be the case if we accept his definition of what the press is.
When the Founding Fathers wrote that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, it was known, even then, that the press played a valuable function in society. But what that function is has never been firmly defined. Then again, perhaps Black had it right all along. Perhaps members of the press and the press itself, except in rare circumstances, are too afraid to fully embrace that notion.
[email protected]