Although this seems unfair, Lake Oswego City is making moves to create a policy that defines who a member of the news media is. Each of these definitions were proposed with further detail, but here is the general gist presented by city council:
• Regular reporting on the Lake Oswego City Council
• Multiple personnel with defined roles
• Registration with the state Corporation Division
• Reporting "conducted continuously (at least weekly) and permanently"
• Publications or broadcasts that include "at least 25 percent news content"
• Media representatives would be allowed to attend executive sessions if they provide evidence that includes "proof satisfactory to the City Council that the person is gathering news," along with a press badge, a recently published news article with their byline or an editor's note on letterhead.
Let's take each definition step by step:
First, I do see it as important for someone to have done regular coverage of the Lake Oswego City Council. How can someone give quality coverage of the council without knowing what is going on. Fairly simple concept.
But why does this form of news media have to be multiple personal? Is a journalist not credible if the person does all the work by themselves? If someone frequently reports, and reports such information accurately, what makes his/her news less credible than news generated by a group? These are the questions I would ask to challenge that definition. I do understand that there could potentially be hundreds of individuals that claim to cover the local government in an appropriate manner, but in reality are crazy people that are completely bias towards what they write about.
To sort out these crazy people from the "true" journalists is part of the reason why these definitions are needed in the first place. What the problem is from the journalist's eye is that some "true" journalists may be mistaken as one of those crazy people, which is understood to an extent. It is an industry full of passionate people. People so moved by something, that they had to write it down, or type it up to share it with the rest of the world.
They must share this information weekly, apparently, in order to prove that they are established journalists. I agree that if you are a journalist, you report "regularly", but who is to say a weekly basis should be that line? I can see a biweekly newsletter being an effective news source. For bloggers, however, I see why it would be a weekly minimum. It's only because a blog post is not usually as full of stories as a newsletter or something like a newsletter.
In terms of reaching 25% news content, it should be easy for a blogger to be considered a journalist. Sure they will have ads for revenue and things along those lines. But if those ads are overdone, they can turn off potential consumers. As long as the outlet limits those pop-up ads and other obnoxious forms of advertising, there should be no problem having over 25% news content through an outlet.
Since these definitions are being implemented, it is important to have the City Council decide whether these credentials are met. The error, that I see, of this process is that the local government now has more power over what news reaches the media and what doesn't. The City Council may not want independent media outlets showing up to executive meetings, knowing that large media news coverage with give the generic and basic story, rather than digging and finding out more. So even if these independent journalists have the credentials the city set, they could be denied because these people and power don't want people sniffing around.
Defining a journalist is not easy, but for law-sake it needs to be done. Separating a independent journalist from a mainstream one is challenging, which is what I think this local government in Oregon is trying to do. I understand there are going to be meetings not open to the public, but they are disallowing "true" journalists. I see a line being drawn in-between the independent and commercial journalist in order to keep the power they hold on the media, rather than having people that may not support the government's actions.
In terms of reaching 25% news content, it should be easy for a blogger to be considered a journalist. Sure they will have ads for revenue and things along those lines. But if those ads are overdone, they can turn off potential consumers. As long as the outlet limits those pop-up ads and other obnoxious forms of advertising, there should be no problem having over 25% news content through an outlet.
Since these definitions are being implemented, it is important to have the City Council decide whether these credentials are met. The error, that I see, of this process is that the local government now has more power over what news reaches the media and what doesn't. The City Council may not want independent media outlets showing up to executive meetings, knowing that large media news coverage with give the generic and basic story, rather than digging and finding out more. So even if these independent journalists have the credentials the city set, they could be denied because these people and power don't want people sniffing around.
Defining a journalist is not easy, but for law-sake it needs to be done. Separating a independent journalist from a mainstream one is challenging, which is what I think this local government in Oregon is trying to do. I understand there are going to be meetings not open to the public, but they are disallowing "true" journalists. I see a line being drawn in-between the independent and commercial journalist in order to keep the power they hold on the media, rather than having people that may not support the government's actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment