An Argument Jonah Missed

Jonah Goldberg smites the journalists and their enablers who are whining that they are a special class entitled to a special constitutional right to withhold evidence.  This flows from the investigation into the Plame leak, and Mr. Goldberg includes this:

Indeed, the reigning talking point from the First Amendment voluptuaries is that lawyers and doctors are protected from revealing secrets, why shouldn't journalists be? Well, lawyers are not allowed to help their clients break the law, and neither are doctors. If it's against the law to ID a CIA agent, why should journalists — including Novak — be automatically off the hook.

Overlooked by Mr. Goldberg (and I am stealing from a commenter whose handle eludes me) is that doctors and lawyers are licensed and accredited by the government (often at the state level, of course).  In all of the calls for recognition of a constitutional right for press protection, is the press also calling for some Federal standards, or a licensing exam?

I don't think so.  And I certainly hope not.

Comments

[Lurking Observer]

Why not?

I ask this only semi-facetiously.

When an energy corporation (e.g., ENRON) goes amuck, the media's first reaction is "Why isn't there more regulation"? Ditto for the auditing agencies (e.g., Arthur Andersen).

Can you imagine the media not calling for more regulation by the government if there were scandals in fast food, food packaging, medical facilities, retirement homes, etc.?

How well would a "we're self-policing" argument fare on op-ed and editorial pages if the industry were found to be lying to investors (e.g., circulation numbers) or its practitioners were often found to be fraudulent (see Blair, Jason; Kelley, Jack; Mapes, Mary)?

I don't think it's good for government to be running the news (although the Left seems rather enamored of the BBC). But at the same time, I am more than a little riled by the hypocrisy of the media denouncing all other examples of self-policing as "having the fox guard chicken coops"---except their own.

[TM]

OK, it would be funny as all get-out to watch the reaction to a proposal by Tom DeLay to create legislative protections for reporters in exchange for government oversight.

But plenty of Dems would not get the joke, and what if the bill passed?

[Lurking Observer]

TM:

Let me be clear and say that I think governmental oversight of journalists is a bad idea. The capacity for abuse is simply too high.

At the same time, judging from the media's desperate attempts to dismiss blogging as irrelevant, if not downright irresponsible, and their resistance to according bloggers the same basic protections as journalists (e.g., the ongoing issue of whether bloggers are accorded the minimal protection from libel suits), it would seem these folks really do believe that, in some ways, they are above the law.

After all, how else would one describe a system that should not be subject to governmental nor any other outside oversight?

[praktike]

Let me state clearly that gov't oversight of journalists is the worst idea I've ever heard. It's unAmerican.

[Lurking Observer]

The question, praktike, is not whether governmental oversight of journalism is a bad idea (btw, I notice the Brits seem to pull it off, and an awful lots of folks seem to like the BBC).

The question is: What do you do w/ an institution that has a proven track record of failing to police itself, but which has significant power? What methods of policing it are available that do not keep it from doing its job but do reduce the prospects of abuse?

Certainly, if the press is engaged in open fraud on its business end, no one would suggest that they should be free of audits, would they? Is the business of the Fourth Estate that much more important than the work of the Fourth Estate?

[praktike]

"What do you do w/ an institution that has a proven track record of failing to police itself, but which has significant power?"

Whine about it.

[Sonny]

Technically, since journalists are not gov't employees *cough*BBC*cough* they are subject to one form of oversight- the market.

And even the BBC just fired a bunch of journalists, due in part I'm sure to private sector competition e.g.SkyNet

[Pete the Elder]

Do not forget that clergy also have the right to withhold some evidence and there is less government regulation of who qualifies as clergy than there is of lawyers or doctors.

[TM]

Good point. Although there is some regulation - I am thinking of groups that lose their tax-exempt status, or the right to use otherwide-illegal herbs for religious rituals.

[martin]

Also spouses can't be compelled to testify against their spouse.
Regulate my wife, ...please.

[LarryD]

While doctors are licensed, it's a myth that lawyers are. Ask a lawyer to show you his/her license to practice law, odds are they'll point to their Bar certificate. Except the Bar associations are professional organizations (like the AMA), not units of state government. Check your local laws and try and find out who is the state designated licensing authority for lawyers. If you can.

[LarryD]

While doctors are licensed, it's a myth that lawyers are. Ask a lawyer to show you his/her license to practice law, odds are they'll point to their Bar certificate. Except the Bar associations are professional organizations (like the AMA), not units of state government. Check your local laws and try and find out who is the state designated licensing authority for lawyers. If you can.

[TM]

Lawyers are not licensed by the government? Hmm. First, sometimes governments endorse professional associations that engage in self-regulation - this is a classic ploy for groups to enforce a cartel, with the government as the hired muscle to enforce the rules.

But theory aside, Google has couged up Maryland first, and I excerpt the opening paragraph:

Every person who seeks a license to practice law in the state courts of the State of Maryland must demonstrate that he or she possesses the legal competence and character and fitness necessary for admission to the Maryland Bar. Legal competence is demonstrated by presenting the requisite educational credentials and passing the Maryland Bar Examination. A candidate demonstrates the requisite character and fitness by submitting to an investigation of his or her background conducted by the Character Committees and the state Board of Law Examiners. The Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, reserves to itself the authority to decide whether to admit a Bar applicant after receiving a recommendation from the State Board of Law Examiners.

I think we can forgive the confusion of those who think that, at least sometimes, lawyers are licensed by the state.