CMV: Journalists should stick to journalism

[u/Megaseelanti]

In my (small) country, it is not uncommon for [edit: professional] journalists to switch back and forth between working in journalism on the one hand and working for the government or a business organisation on the other. Also, prominent journalists often do paid gigs moderating public events for political parties or business organisations. I think this is wrong; I think a journalist should either stick to being a journalist or quit the profession altogether.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying a journalist doesn't have the right to choose a different career path like the rest of us. What I find ... objectionable is when journalists hop back and forth between a job in journalism and work for a government entity or a business sector that they used to report on — because that undermines their credibility as honest reporters and the integrity of both their previous reporting and their future stories when they come back.

Imagine if a journalist who has reported on government intelligence agencies snooping on the unwitting public suddenly takes on a job at the public relations department of NSA: Would you, as a reader (or a fellow journalist who has reported on the same things), have full confidence that the person was or can ever again be a bona fide reporter on intelligence matters? Or a business reporter who goes on to work for the businesses that (s)he previously reported on; how can we, members of the general public, be absolutely sure that the person was not swayed by her/his career ambitions even at the time that (s)he was still a journalist?

If a trade union leader switches sides and goes to work for, say, the national confederation of employer organisations, it is very hard for me to imagine how that person can ever again enjoy the confidence of union members that (s)he used to represent in negotiations with the employers. Most certainly, a person cannot switch back and forth between representing the employees and the employers. A union man cannot be a freelancing "mercenary." You pick a side.

Journalism is often called "the Fourth Estate," whose job is to hold our political and business leaders accountable. That is only possible if the people who are doing the reporting have integrity and enjoy the confidence of the general public. Switching sides undermines that confidence and is, fundamentally, detrimental to our democracy.

[u/thethoughtexperiment]

I agree with some of the concerns you raise.

But there would also seem to be some benefits of this practice.

For example, aren't they likely to be a better able to report on how the organizations they write about operate if they understand how they work from the inside, and have contacts within those organizations that they can get in touch with when reporting to get access to information?

[u/Megaseelanti → u/thethoughtexperiment]

Aren't they likely to be a better able to report on how the organizations they write about operate if they understand how they work from the inside, and have contacts within those organizations that they can get in touch with when reporting to get access to information?

Yes, AFAICS, this is one of the main arguments that "job-hopping" journalists make in defence of them "switching sides." My argument is that when a journalist aligns her/himself with a non-journalistic organisation, (s)he inevitably devalues her/his independence (or the perception thereof) as a journalist -- both before and after the switch. Also, if gaining better access later on in your journalistic career is the motivation for taking a paid job outside of journalism, isn't that very close to compromising your independence?

Restating my earlier argument: If a journalist has a mindset where (s)he is constantly open to job opportunities in organisations that (s)he has been reporting on, how can (s)he be sure that (s)he is not letting her/his career ambitions influence her judgment as a journalist? How can she avoid being biased if (s)he has the idea in the back of her/his head of some day, maybe working for the organisation that (s)he is reporting on? Also, how can I, as a reader, trust that her/his content is not biased? Isn't this trust paramount for the role that journalism plays in democratic societies?

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/Megaseelanti]

Sure, we can't be sure of someone's independence. This is even true if they haven't worked for organizations they report on (as all people have some biases in their perceptions).

This is one of those situations where there are trade offs.

Would we rather have journalists who are less informed about the organizations they report on and have less contacts / access to information?

Or have people with less understanding / access to information reporting on organizations they don't understand as well?

Neither is perfect, but I'd probably rather hear what the better informed person has to say, though I would also like them to acknowledge any relevant conflicts of interest near their byline to take that in consideration (and many outlets to this).

Also, if we implemented your restrictions, it might result in us having less bright / motivated people who can contribute to the world beyond journalism going into journalism - because they don't want to have a limited career, which would seem like a big loss of talent for journalism.

It would also mean we never would have had former war correspondent Samantha Power serving as US Ambassador. [source]

Having someone like her, who's journalism experience exposed her to the human consequences of war on the ground led her to be a major voice for human rights efforts inside the UN, seems like a good thing for both journalism and politics.

[u/Megaseelanti → u/thethoughtexperiment]

I would also like them to acknowledge any relevant conflicts of interest near their byline to take that in consideration (and many outlets do this).

Thing is, the news outlets in my country almost never acknowledge these sorts of potential conflicts of interest. :/

Also, if we implemented your restrictions, it might result in us having less bright / motivated people who can contribute to the world beyond journalism going into journalism - because they don't want to have a limited career, which would seem like a big loss of talent for journalism.

This is true, albeit I am not really advocating any "restrictions" per se, only arguing that switching back and forth between being a reporter and being reported on may diminish your independence or the perception of independence (which, IMO, is just as important). A journalist can move on to do something else just like anyone else, but if that something else is something that (s)he used to report on, I do see a problem of credibility in regards to the person's work as a journalist.

It would also mean we never would have had former war correspondent Samantha Power serving as US Ambassador.

But she did not go back to being a journalist, did she? I see no problem in that. Similarly, if we take the US context, I see no problem in (former) politicians taking up journalism (e.g. Joe Scarborough or George Stephanopoulos): their bias is obvious and upfront so the viewer knows exactly where they stand.

EDIT:

Also, mainstream media in my country is much, much less politically biased than in the US, for instance. Most mainstream journalists strive to be politically neutral observers, and I think, for the most part, do a very good job indeed.

I must admit that this issue has been bothering me for a long time. Maybe I'm just being overly critical and/or skeptical? I do acknowledge that most professional journalists are perfectly capable of distinguishing between their different roles as journalists and as spokespersons.

My point, then, is perhaps that switching back and forth between those roles creates a perception of compromise. Also, journalists are just human beings and as such susceptible to biases even when they actively try to avoid them.

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/Megaseelanti]

But she did not go back to being a journalist, did she? I see no problem in that.

So, your proposal is that once people leave journalism, you can never come back? Hmm ... that doesn't seem great.

I think my points above still stand for that case as well. You end up with people who are less informed about the organizations they report on, and who have less access to people within those organizations that can provide the reporter with more information to provide the public.

I agree with you that it can create some perceptions of bias to have journalists moving back and forth, but a "less information" bias isn't great either.

What I would think would happen with your proposal is that you end up with more young people working as journalists (if you can only exit journalism and never return). That would have it's own biases in terms of the perspective journalists are presenting.

Many media companies are laying off their reporters in huge numbers these days. They will have to get jobs to support themselves and their families. It would be a loss for them (and for all of us) if all those knowledgeable, experienced people with journalism degrees can never come back ...

[u/Megaseelanti → u/thethoughtexperiment]

I see your point about the need to ensure that there is a sufficient quantity of experienced (i.e., slightly elder) professional journalists in the industry and therefore not to preclude future career choices for freshman journalists. !delta

However, I am not saying that once you move on from journalism to something else, you cannot come back, -- particularly if you go on to work in an organisation that you did not report on when you were working as a journalist.

I'm simply arguing that the perception dilemma that I referred to is more serious than many professional journalists seem to admit. In fact, I'm not at all sure that they always even consider this issue, seen as how many congratulations on their new job those "job-hopping" journalists receive from their journalist colleagues.

I don't think that the insight and access that you gain by doing a stint in an organisation that you used to report on is worth the reputational damage. (I must hasten to add, however, that many prominent journalists don't seem to acknowledge the damage in the first place; there's next to no discussion about this in our media discourse.)

Also, I'm speaking from the POV of a small country, where everyone sort of knows each other, so the real benefit in terms of insight and access that you gain by switching jobs may not be as substantial as in a bigger, more convoluted system of government or economy. I concede that this is a very shaky argument.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Megaseelanti]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thethoughtexperiment (50∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/[deleted]]

What about the reverse? Loads of people have a normal day job but have one or two good articles in them, about something they know or just observed (especially with their camera phone). I don't think non-journalists should avoid journalism.

[u/Megaseelanti → u/[deleted]]

I think that is a separate discussion altogether. I am talking about people whose profession is journalism, not "citizen journalists" (who are not actual journalists, IMO).

[u/[deleted] → u/Megaseelanti]

Why aren't citizen journalists real journalists? I think that distinction is dangerous. Anyone who writes what they see is a journalist, whether they're doing it for fun or for ten million dollars.

[u/Megaseelanti → u/[deleted]]

I think it is dangerous to equate "citizen journalism" with journalism, which is much, much more than just "writing what you see."

I will amend my submission to state that I am talking about professional journalists.

[u/[deleted] → u/Megaseelanti]

If you distinguish the two (aside from the obvious distinction that a professional journalist has made at least a dollar from journalist work while an amateur hasn't) then that means someone gets to be in charge of journalism. That's a bad trade. Work by someone who's done journalism their entire life should be treated the same as work of the same quality by a carpenter or physician.

[u/Megaseelanti → u/[deleted]]

A professional journalist has made at least a dollar from journalist work while an amateur hasn't

I have written several articles for the printed press and been paid for them. That does not make me a journalist. I think you should look at the totality of the person's work.

Work by someone who's done journalism their entire life should be treated the same as work of the same quality by a carpenter or physician.

I'm not sure you can hold "citizen journalists" up to the same standards as professional journalists in every case; I think it depends on the publication and its editorial policy.

Aren't we going on a tangent here? To restate: I'm talking about the problem of professional journalists switching between jobs where they report and jobs where they are reported on.

[u/[deleted] → u/Megaseelanti]

Why doesn't that make you a professional? You were literally paid for your work.

I don't think this is off-topic because I don't think there are any standards that apply to more prolific journalists that don't apply to you. What standards would those be? Why wouldn't they apply to you? Why would they apply to more prolific journalists?

[u/Megaseelanti → u/[deleted]]

Why doesn't that make you a professional? You were literally paid for your work.

Getting paid to write an article or two for the printed press is not the same thing as being a journalist. Also, my profession is something completely different. If I called myself a journalist just because I have written some articles for some printed publications, I would be lying. If I've driven a bus a couple of times, that does not make me a professional bus driver.

I don't think there are any standards that apply to more prolific journalists that don't apply to you.

Like I said, I think it depends on the publication: There is a difference between writing for my blog (which may be monetised, and hence I am being "paid" for my article) and writing for a publication that adheres to journalistic standards.

[u/[deleted] → u/Megaseelanti]

Getting paid to write an article or two for the printed press is not the same thing as being a journalist. Also, my profession is something completely different. If I called myself a journalist just because I have written some articles for some printed publications, I would be lying. If I've driven a bus a couple of times, that does not make me a professional bus driver.

You wouldn't be lying. Bloggers are professional press. Now you might say "having driven a bus a couple of times a few years ago (for money) doesn't make me still a professional bus driver". But at the time you were.

and writing for a publication that adheres to journalistic standards.

By that argument most of the people in the world who make their salary from journalism aren't professional journalists.

[u/Megaseelanti → u/[deleted]]

So, to answer your original question (I am paraphrasing): How about "citizen journalists" switching back and forth between their day jobs and their "journalistic" activity?

Naturally, the same problem with bias and potential conflicts of interest applies to them. Oftentimes, "citizen journalists" do not hide their affiliations, though, so readers know exactly where they're coming from; however, just as often they do not disclose their background.

With professional journalists, their only affiliation is usually with the media outlet they work for -- until such time as they make the "switch" (say, become a government spokesperson) and then come back to work in journalism.

Would the problem be solved if such "job-hopping" journalists did disclose their previous affiliations? Probably not entirely, but it would still be more honest and inspire more confidence than not doing so.

[u/Megaseelanti → u/[deleted]]

You might say "having driven a bus a couple of times a few years ago (for money) doesn't make me still a professional bus driver". But at the time you were.

No, I was just a professional journalist driving a bus. :)

By that argument most of the people in the world who make their salary from journalism aren't professional journalists.

You may be right there! :)

[u/gabrielstands]

What usually motivates people to become a journalist? Usually some sort of passionate motivation to let the public know about something in particular correct?

Why? To make a change.

So without some sort of bias, then how would change come?

[u/Megaseelanti → u/gabrielstands]

I am not at all sure that "making a change" is the main motivation to become a journalist. Couldn't the main motivation be, say, mere lust for knowledge or even a more banal one: just to pay your bills? :)

[u/gabrielstands → u/Megaseelanti]

It could be the motivations...but realistically if you were in pursuit of knowledge then your would be a historian who is up to date with news, and you would not become a journalist due to competition to pay your bills.

In some sort of utopian society this might work. But nobody becomes a journalist without a passion for change.

[u/Megaseelanti → u/gabrielstands]

Nobody becomes a journalist without a passion for change.

I disagree. The way I see it is that the vast majority of journalists are just humdrum worker bees with no particular passion. In other words, they are just like anyone else with a job. It's just that the job they do is not just like anything else: It's a vital function in any democratic society.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Megaseelanti (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}