Requiring journalists to register a bad idea

I’ve taken up a lot of this space over the past few years writing about responsible journalism and what that means. I’ve written about the training and experience journalists need to do the job the right way, and about how not everyone who calls themselves a journalist necessarily is one.

So you’d think I’d be all for a journalism registry, like the one proposed in January by a South Carolina legislator. The bill, called the “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law,” was proposed by Republican state Rep. Mike Pitts and would create requirements for journalists to meet before they can be registered or hired by a news organization.

Great, right? A way to separate the wheat (real reporters) from the chaff (rogue bloggers and gadflies, groupies and hacks), right? Proof that there are responsible, ethical and unbiased journalists covering news in the Palmetto State (and elsewhere, presumably, since South Carolina outlets probably send their reporters to other states, like we sometimes do)?

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

And here’s why: The First Amendment.

The Bill of Rights has a lot of ambiguity built into it, something I believe (though others disagree) was by design, as our Founding Fathers knew their fledgling nation would grow and evolve. But it’s crystal clear on this: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”

No law. Doesn’t get much clearer than that.

South Carolina's state constitution, as well, codifies freedom of the press. Article IX, Sec. 6 reads, “The trial by jury, as heretofore used in this State, and the liberty of the press, shall be forever inviolably preserved.”

Forever inviolably preserved.

New Jersey’s state constitution, as well, is clear. Article I, Sec. 6 says:

“Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.”

Yes, we may say and write what we wish. And there are very American consequences for doing so irresponsibly: We can get sued. (We can’t say we weren’t warned.)

According to the Charleston Post and Courier, Pitt questioned whether journalists working in his state follow professional ethics laid out by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and claimed too many editorialize on issues, particularly gun control (which he opposes).

But here’s the thing: No one ever said we can’t editorialize, or that a free press can’t also be an opinionated one. Fox News and Mother Jones, for example, have pretty clear political leanings, but that doesn’t mean either should see its work limited or censored in any way. For publications such as the Courier-Post, which strive to be objective and fair in our reporting, opinions are fine — as long as it's made clear they're just that, and not fact.

Many journalists carry credentials, it's true. I have a New Jersey Press photo ID issued by the state press association and in cooperation with the state police. That lets me go places others might not be allowed, but of course that comes with responsibility: I can go to a crime scene, but I can’t get in the way of law enforcement personnel. Our hockey writer, Dave Isaac, has credentials that get him into the Flyers locker room and press box. Our high school sports reporters have IDs given to them by the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association — it gets them into games without having to pay admission and allows them to report from the sidelines and press boxes.

But those IDs simply allow us access, plain and simple; we could still be journalists without them (if slightly less effective ones). There was no litmus test we had to take to get those credentials, other than to prove to our bosses we can be trusted to do our jobs. There was no government entity or agency dictating who the Courier-Post could hire; it’s up to editors to look at a resume, interview a candidate, judge past work … just like in any other hiring scenario.

A free and open press, unfettered by government regulation: It’s not a libertarian or liberal or political stand of any kind.

It’s simply the law of the land.

Phaedra Trethan: (856) 486-2417; ptrethan@gannettnj.com