This is a tragedy, Scott Alexander is such a thoughtful writer.
I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney client privilege for sources.
I 100% agree and talked about this a lot in j school. Would love to see some type of society body emerge with a coalition of Pulitzer Prize winners (the only real framework that possibly stands to live past the inevitable calls about its legitimacy from the News Corp -owned bodies of media, honestly) and ideally backed by the biggest news media companies in the world. I would love to see a further membership based element where members of the public and journalists could critique reportage and possible ethical lapses all publicly, adhering to principles set by the society itself.
Honestly I think it's time journalists take back some of the responsibility and importance of their roles that's been stripped by colleague and company malpractice (and the side effects of a business model twisted inside out in rapid succession), as many DO recognize their importance. But like politics any real "talk" of media quickly devolves into sports-like tribalism and never gets beyond hating the 'players' not the game itself.
> society body emerge with a coalition of Pulitzer Prize winners ... backed by the biggest news media companies
If biggest media companies were interested in upholding any ethical standards - the would have been doing that already. Allowing them to create a coalition and giving that coalition any more power would make things only worse.
It's fine to have a standards committee with the power of suggestion. However something like that could just as easily become something for countries with dictators to use to attempt to silence reporters who they don't like so I suspect that's why there's no "governing body" just some organizations who recommend best practices. One man's "standards" is another one's opportunity to cull rebellious journalists.
A standards body maybe. But do you not see some ethical concerns of licensing that tells people how to conduct journalism? Freedom of the Press, but only for those who the governing body deems fit?
The whole point of a license is to reduce the gamut of people who can practice a profession to just those people who do it the way the license specifies. In a world such as ours, and a country such as the US, it will inevitably become the target of corruption and a position of immense power over the media. Even if it could be a good idea, I don't believe we live in a world where it would be executed in a way that maintains freedom of the press.
I don’t see it as much different than the general societal norms that we tend to teach children, like “try to be nice” and “it’s okay to avoid people who aren’t nice.” Is that a violation of freedom of speech, or some top-down regulation? I don’t think so.
It probably shouldn’t be “licensing” in the sense of using state or otherwise organized violence to seek out people who violate the norms. We generally don’t teach people to punch anyone in the face who is rude. But having general standards of conduct don’t seem to bad to me.
Licensing or regulation is a very particular construct in relation to employment, and nothing like education of ethics.
I am on board with ethics education as a way to impart societal values. I'm pretty sure it's a component in most journalism degrees, but perhaps it should be part of early education more distinctly as well.
There is no accountability, no repercussions [1] for causing any amount of personal and economic damage. No real need to offer retraction and corrections even when reporting isn't just unethical, but also blatantly wrong.
If you want an easy example look at this Super Micro spy chip story [2] by Bloomberg Businessweek. It's absolutely unsubstantiated [3], caused 40% drop for SM share price, but two years later it's still up.
I'm not saying there aren't consequences to the freedom, and the effects of social media make me wish we could ban entire publications at will, but it's the wrong direction to be thinking.
I must admit, the ability to sway stock prices is pretty far from what I worry about when I think of bad ethics in press, but it does happen to be the kind of thing that would make licensing prone to corruption. The money influencing that kind of corruption would be right at the door of the licensing body, just waiting for the first person to crack the door open.
For me this particular story was notable because it was the first time I had (barely) enough expertise to realise that story is really implausible and enough interest to follow it up.
It's not that rogue journalist influencing stock market is bad, it's bad, but that's not the point. What really bothers me is that that there are no mechanisms on media company level to punish or at least disincentivize faulty reporting.
We encounter misinformation on a daily basis, but can't do anything about it. We can't even notice it, unless topic in question happens to fall in our area of expertise.
I agree, it's going to be tough problem to navigate. I can't even come up with a vague ideological solution for it, let alone a good mechanism that is fair and robust against corruption. It's like being stuck inbetween one ideal and another. Freedom of information vs stopping the bad being caused by misinformation.
My optimistic side would hope that putting education in schools about misinformation and how to critically think about and analyze journalism could at least help the issue.
It seems to me that protecting sources and mandating some degree of truthfulness (like don't outright lie about verifiable facts, as some statements are not disprovable) are orthogonal to dictating the subject of the stories?
The AMA and bar associations are not without their issues either (they end up driving prices up since they have a monopoly on their service), but it seems to me that people don't have to worry about doctors doxxing their patients on social media or lawyers making deals behind a client's back as much. When it does happen, these professionals are usually ejected from their profession, which is a pretty big disincentive.
Maybe there could be an independent body like the EFF but capable of issuing penalties to the egregious companies, but not the individuals. Perhaps even cap the type of company that can receive penalties, in order to preserve the ability for small upstarts to succeed without giving a potentially corruptable governing body the tools to squash them under a veil of legitimacy.
If you license individuals, how do you categorize what is and is not journalism, and where do you stop? Photojournalists, blogs, for fun school magazines, local newspapers? Are radio shows journalism? Youtube channels? Do I become an unlicensed journalist if they hold misinformation? Thinking of the worst case, a corrupted governing body could quietly pick and choose who they want to take penalize for not practicing with a license, or penalize them out of existence even if they have one.
That benefits big news corps while stifling open/free journalism with risk. For one example of what I mean by that but in a different industry, I will never run a website that could have users upload media in my country, because we have no safe-harbour laws. If you are at risk of penalties, many people just won't start.
Licensing only works if you have to be in a certain jurisdiction to operate in it. Given that more "journalism" is online, if Murdoch or the Barclay Brothers or whoever don't like the restrictions of your licence, they can just employ journalists somewhere else. If they need boots on the ground, they can employ independent contractors.
How do you prevent independent journalists selling pieces to certain outlets without unfairly placing the burden on the journalist? Is it a list of proscribed publications? How does a publication get on the list? What happens to all the "good" journalists who work for an organisation when it gets put on the list?
What, exactly, is a journalist? Does it include columnists who write opinion pieces? If not, how do you prevent an outlet from running more and more "opinion pieces" masquerading as news? If you get defrocked for doing something your employer considers highly profitable, they can just rebrand you as a columnist.
What does it mean to be licensed? What does having a licence allow you to do that you can't do without one? Is this your "press pass" allowing you to ask questions at briefings? There have been cases recently when this has been revoked on a whim. Is it just to get a byline in a printed newspaper? Again, they can rebrand unlicensed journalists as runners, and print the piece under the name of a real journalist.
Journalism is not a terminal career like medicine or law. If you get thrown out of one of those professions, you lose your livelihood. There is nothing else that you are as well trained for that pays as well. You have to start at the bottom of something else. Most journalists are not particularly well paid. Former journalists can earn as much, if not more, writing press releases and advertising copy.
Doctors were once upon a time not very highly trained, medicine was a crapshoot, now things have changed. I'm sure it was a tremendous upheaval at the time. That it's a lot of work doesn't mean it can't be done.
A more interesting argument against doing this is considering the tradeoffs if implemented:
* e.g. the AMA has pretty successfully restricted the supply of doctors and driven the prices of medicine up,
* people are so paranoid about giving medical or legal advice they have to say things like "I'm not a doctor but... I'm not a lawyer but..."
Whenever people mention licensing practitioners of some trade, the interesting question is always "licence to do what?". All too often, the answer tends to be a boring and poorly thought out "licence to call yourself an X". It fails to answer "what can an X legally do that a non-X cannot?"
In the case of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers,things like surgery, controlled drugs, rights of audience are easy to restrict. If you are not one and try to do the job anyway, you won't get very far.
As a client, I cannot use a partitioner who is not licensed in my jurisdiction. If I have a video consultation with a real foreign doctor, they still can't write me a prescription I can take to my local pharmacist. No matter how good the doctor is, they are made deficient by not being registered with the GMC.
A journalist writes and publishes articles about current affairs. You can't legally prevent people doing that without a catastrophic infringement of free speech.
Every day, I read articles from publications from many countries. Those articles are not made deficient by the fact that they are not written by NUJ members.
Plenty of people read and believe bunkum written by people who don't even pretend to be journalists. Sticking little "licenced by..." Logo on the real stuff won't make a difference there.
There is already a sort-of licence. Being employed by a company as a journalist, especially if the company is a recognised media "name".
But the people this is deliberately not recognising is bloggers. And to be honest, I'm seeing better journalism being done by (some) bloggers than (some) paid journalists now (not their fault - the business model for journalism is a mess, while the model for blogging is working).
> There is already a sort-of licence. Being employed by a company as a journalist, especially if the company is a recognised media "name".
But this obviously fails as seen in this instance (and many others). Companies have interests that do not align with the public's interest of ethical standards. Much like we've generally understood (but unfortunately not really everywhere) that letting other industries regulate themselves isn't a good idea, I don't think it's any different in the media.
Personally, I'd rather journalism wasn't licensed in this way. I get the intention behind it, but it'd basically outlaw freelance journalists, independent journalism sites, blogging, etc, and make it easier to justify arresting people at protests because you don't like what they're recording.
Also an easy target to politicise, and dangerous to society if the far left/right end up running such a board and dictating that their opponents are wrong.
Scott Alexander may not have been the original source, but he is a definitely _a_ source as it seems he was in touch with the reporter. The reporter has an undeniable ethical duty to decide whether to publish his full name after he raises concerns about his safety.
I see limited to no news value in publishing his name and substantial risk of harm, but I'm a frequent reader and admirer of the blog.
I don't think the 'substantial risk of harm' is established, at least, not by Scott Alexander's own behaviour - he says himself his pseudonymity was quite thin. Journalists tend to see their responsibility as being primarily to their readers, not the subjects of their stories. Subjects generally don't get to edit stories about themselves - that's considered non-journalism.
> I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an antipsychiatry Reddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired.
I think anyone who is not a sociopath would consider this proof of a “substantial risk of harm”.
Lots of people receive death threats and even more claim they receive threats or perceive types of loud criticism as threats. Being on the wrong end of these is no picnic but it is not, in itself, a substantial risk of harm. And again, his own efforts to protect his identity seem to have been relatively superficial. He just didn't think he was going to end up in the NYT and he was mistaken. As I said elsewhere, it's a bummer this is a disruption for him but it's not obvious we (let alone the journalist who actually figured out his name, as anyone wishing him harm could have) should take the claims of risk of harm at face value.
I don't disagree with your characterization that the obligation of the journalist is to inform, but what is the marginal utility of revealing his whole name? It's hard for me to come up with anything.
I wouldn't be opposed to the story running under a fictional name, even though that would probably not be to Scott's liking either.
I think this is the critical point. The marginal utility is quite clear though: Readers can check all sorts of claims for themselves by looking up public details about the person. E.g. are they really a psychiatrist working at X as the reporter claims.
In the specific case though, given a really well established pseudonymous online identity, that is the central subject of the article, the marginal utility of the additional information you can check seems uniquely low. At least if the subject is just the pseudonymous activity of the author.
Maybe there's some case to publish his name if he's misrepresenting himself. It doesn't seem like that's the case. If the journalist finds discrepancies he can report on them too.
He already has a sort-of fictional name. He's also a public figure with a substantial following. I think for the journalist reporting on him, this is a no brainer - identify the thing you're talking about. At the end of the day, I'm not some expert it journalistic ethics - maybe they don't have to publish his name. But the notion that they're committing some grave moral offense or journalistic malpractice by publishing it over his objections seems completely misplaced. It's journalists' job to publish things over subject's objections.
Suppose the National Review were doing a piece on a labor campaign and decided to publish the name of a major employee leader who had maintained his anonymity to protect his job. Would you be so blase about their journalistic ethics? After all, publishing true information about someone even if they don't want it published is just journalism at its finest.
It's not the sort of work the National Review does so I'm not sure I really understand the hypothetical. Do journalists sometimes omit details to protect subjects or sources from harm? Sure. But the bar for harm is usually higher than 'the subject wouldn't like it'.
Surely you'd agree that "trying to be pseudonymous but not taking it very seriously" and "being published in the new york times" are substantially different things, no? One can do the former and reasonably not expect it to lead to the latter.
Those expectations are reasonable when you are a blogger with little to no following. But at some point on the fame/popularity spectrum, those expectations become rather foolish.
At the point where the NY Times is reaching out to write an article about you, I think you have likely crossed that threshold. Scott's best move would have been to refuse an interview in the hopes that it would kill the story. But even that might not have mattered. If your goal is to be both famous/influential and pseudonymous, you probably need to work a little harder to protect your anonymity.
You mean he didn't expect to get so popular? Sure, I can believe that but he's been popular for a while. My argument isn't really that he should have foreseen this, it's his own damn fault and that he deserves no sympathy. He has my sympathy, I just find his response unpersuasive and (perhaps understandably in his moment of distress) overwrought.
Licensing seems like a solution to problems like this but the cure would be worse than the disease. Control over the licensing body would guarantee control over information, so it would become a prize to be fought for and the whole thing would be politicized. The best case scenario is we end up with the same mess we have now. Worst case is one side captures control and now their side gets to be the only "legitimate" one.
Same problem with so-called fact-checking. It's politicized, which means it adds nothing over the chaotic political debate we already have, except a false veneer of objectivity.
This is possibly one of the easiest ways to create a police state if you make journalism "regulated" (i.e. government approved) ((or if you're a nutter, corporation approved))
People just don't buy newspapers anymore since the net is full of news articles. Your business model is basically attracting as many people as possible to your site. Advertisers were always the largest customers but today the reader is completely exempt from business relations.
I'm not really putting much on the table but journalist are in my low tier of respect, if there's any.
There's so many instances of abuse, lying and laziness that seems low standards are common through the profession and countries.
In general I tend to see them as activist, with very few exceptions of people that tries to approach truth.
Nowadays it really doesn't matter if they write for a local newspaper or WAPO, it's just so common that your default approach should be looking at every piece as propaganda.
Not in some countries but it's the 1st amendment of the US Constitution that protects freedom of speech and the press. So it's considered pretty important here.
I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney client privilege for sources.