Who Says You're A Journalist?

Marcelo Moreira is the Editorial Director of TV Globo in Brazil, one of the leading tv news services in Latin America. Marcelo and I are on the advisory board of the International News Safety Institute (INSI), an organization committed to preparing journalists to go to war zones and helping journalists deal with trauma as a result of their journalistic experiences.

Marcelo brought a recent interesting development to our attention : by an 8–1 vote, Brazil's Supreme Court overturned the law requiring a journalism degree for all practicing members of the profession.

Chief Justice Gilmar Mendes, writing for the majority, said that journalism "is connected to the broad exercise of freedom of expression and information, and the degree requirement goes against the Constitution, which guarantees those freedoms."

Citing the recent repeal of Brazil's press censorship law, Mendes argued that the media can still regulate itself. “Nothing prevents [media companies] from asking for a college journalism degree,” he stated.

The question for INSI members from Marcelo was this: "...is it true that, even if not legally necessary, the major newspapers and communication companies hire their professionals (from) among those who...graduate(d) or took master's degree in journalism schools?"

Gavin Rees is the co-ordinator for the DART Centre Europe, a London-based resource center for covering trauma and violence:

The situation in the UK is similar to the US, one doesn't need a professional qualification to become a journalist. Some newspapers, particularly local ones, will insist on reporters taking NCTJ (National Council for the Training of Journalists) qualifications. Those exams cover the law and the major craft aspects of journalism.

The elite power route used to be top UK university and then on-the-job training, with journalism school seen as of marginal use. That's no longer true for a number of reasons. Many of the big papers and broadcasters have effectively given up on their own training schemes over the last few years. And so masters courses have in the UK been increasingly valued both by prospective journalists and their employers, as they meet a shortfall.

Aidan White from the International Federation of Journalists observes:

I'm less cheered by the news from Brazil, not because I think for a minute that the government is dictating who should be a journalist, or that journalism should not be an open profession -- it should be -- but because I know that the bosses who fought this case were not motivated by love of press freedom, but did so because it allows them to deregulate the employment structure for journalists (meaning worse conditions, less pay and more precarious employment).

And Rosental Alves who directs the Knight Center for Journalism at the University of Texas in Austin writes:

In the US, the last data I saw, from the mid 1990s, showed that 85% of new hires in newsrooms came from schools of journalism despite the fact that there is no legal requirement of a degree in journalism. The same study showed however, that many of the best journalists in the country were not journalism graduates.

I am saddened by the feeling of many journalists and journalism students in Brazil that the Supreme Court decision is an apocalyptical defeat, the end of the world and the result of a diabolic conspiracy of the media companies that just want to pay less in salaries and hire unqualified people to replace journalism graduates. Well, it is not the end of the world, nor the end of the schools of journalism and, despite the legitimate and serious concerns about companies that may see here an opportunity to exploit even more their employees, I don’t expect a significant change in the work conditions in the newsrooms. In fact, many news organizations have ignored the law in a deliberate civil disobedience act and have hired journalists who have not earned degrees in journalism.

The new cause célèbre of journalists in Brazil is to fight for the congress to pass a new law re-establishing the degree requirement. If this happened, Brazil would be back to its embarrassing situation of going against the strong international jurisprudence that considers any restriction to the right of a person to become a journalist a violation to her Human Rights. In fact, the Inter American Court of Human Rights has already forced other Latin American countries to abolish such requirements, considered a violation of article 13 of the Inter American Convention of Human Rights (Brazil is one of the countries that signed this convention).

I would rather see the unions and the journalists more concerned about work conditions in the news organizations, and with great projects like the one INSI and the (Brazilian) unions have helped to put together in Rio and Sao Paulo on training on safety, than fighting to re-establish the degree requirement. With more than 500 schools of journalism in (the US), many of them of low quality and apparently more concerned with making a profit than really training journalists, I really don’t think the degree requirement is the best fight to be fought nowadays.

I didn't graduate from a j-school, but I teach at one now. My own view is that journalism schools tend to deepen the best qualities of the better students. It's not that you can't be a journalist without having graduated from a j-school. But these days, it's an unquestionable advantage in this tightened work market.

Moreover, it's not the job of government to determine who and who is not a journalist. But with the proliferation of bloggers and citizen journalists, the question of who has the "right" credentials becomes more complicated, even for media organizations.

The situation in Brazil, as elsewhere, argues strongly for more news ombudsmen as a way of furthering the concept of independent and self-regulatory journalism. Ombudsmen (or readers' editor or public editors as they are also known) are pretty good at determining what constitutes reliable journalism - despite the presence or absence of j-school grads in a newsroom.

Brazil already has a strong core of ombuds (members of the Organization of News Ombudsmen) whose job it is to help make the journalism more transparent and accountable, while informing the public what constitutes best practices. I suggested to Marcelo that he talk to them about their experiences.

Ombuds also have a useful way of inviting public involvement in the news to forestall and push back inappropriate intrusions from government and pressure groups. When news organizations are truly independent, that's when they best serve the interests of the public by making journalism stronger and by pointing out to journalists and the public alike, what constitutes excellent journalism. At the same time, ombudsmen can make the job of journalism a lot safer by shining a light on how journalism is actually practiced.

Twitter-ocracy in Tehran

The revolution will not be televised. But apparently it will involve tweets.

While the ayatollahs are trying desperately to keep control of the now 30 year old Iranian revolution, social media is proving more powerful than club-wielding, fatwa-brandishing theocrats.

The role of Twitter in bringing democracy to Iran is still underway. A couple of things seem clear: that social media (like all media) has an amazing potential to be a powerful agency of citizenship, even as it has an ability to keep us endlessly amused and constantly socializing. The combination of cell phone cameras, youtube uploads and tweets is making the old guard tremble. And so they should.

This is reminiscent of the fall of Nicolae Ceausescu, the longtime Communist dictator of Romania in 1989. Back then, there was no social media. But there was a new satellite-delivered tv station called CNN, along with the BBC and the BBC World Service on short wave radio.

I was living in Amsterdam and freelancing for CBC Radio. BBC Radio was broadcasting something it called "Radio 648," so named for the frequency on which it was aired - 648 khz. While funding for 648 came from the Foreign Office of the British government, its programming was - at that time - very inventive. It started with a traditional newscast at the top of the clock. Then there were 15 or 20 minute segments aimed at a newly de-Communizing Europe. Jazz, gardening, comedy and a lot of politics and discussions. Each segment was repeated at a different time over the next few hours, so if you missed something, it could be heard again during the daypart.

Radio 648 was aimed at central and eastern Europe, and it originated from somewhere in southern England. As a result, it came in loud and clear in Amsterdam. It was apparently also so popular and so appealing to British audiences, that it began to siphon off listeners from BBC's Radio 4 - the predominant domestic information station. Sometime in the early 1990s, it ended its service. It seemed to have done its part in bringing down the Berlin Wall.

But in late December, 1989, Radio 648 broadcast live from all over Eastern Europe. The revolution in Romania was particularly well reported, with live broadcasts from demonstrations in the capital, Bucharest and from Timisoara, another large city where anti-government demonstrations occurred.

The BBC, ably led by reporter Owen Bennett-Jones kept reporting on where the demonstrations were happening and where the riot police were massing. Another reporter did the same reporting, live from Timisoara. The revolution may not have been televised, but it was reported and it was incredible radio.

Some years later, in 2004 I was invited to meet with journalists from Radio Romania to talk about journalism management. The remains of a communist management still lingered, as these journalists had no confidence in their management. They insisted that all management - indeed, all editing is only about censorship. It was impossible at that time to suggest to the journalists and to management that it did not have to be about censorship. It was clear that it would take more than a few days of discussions to change a lifetime of suspicion and repression.

However, I did ask the Romanian colleagues if they remembered the role that the BBC World Service played back in 1989. They were all in awe of what the BBC had done for them, especially Bennett-Jones' reporting. It had given them hope that they were not alone. Romanians listened to the reports and moved their demonstrators around accordingly. It was the only source of information that allowed them to co-ordinate anti-government activities.

The Ayatollahs are right but wrong: if you can stem the flow of information, you can control the people. But it appears it's too late for that.

What the BBC once did in Bucharest, Twitter is doing in Tehran.

A Tale of Two Talk Shows

Lastweek, I appeared on two radio programs. One was a live Toronto based talk radio program, The John Oakley Show, heard in Toronto on 640 am. the other was taped for future broadcast on The Bob Edwards Show on Sirius XM Satellite Radio. The programs couldn't have more different and more similar.

On John Oakley's show the topic was whether Bill O'Reilly of Fox News had gone too far in his attacks on Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas doctor who performed abortions and was shot to death on May 31 as he attended church. There was Susan G. Cole, a left wing journalist and David Menzies, a conservative journalist. I was there in an expected role, presumably as the academic voice in the middle, ostensibly to add a few thoughtful perspectives to the fray.

I have been on a few talk radio programs before, and usually in the role as an ombudsman-like character: somewhat Solomonic, above the fray, a bit boring I suppose. They have not, for the most part, been enjoyable experiences as the yelling quickly takes the place of wit and debate. Often in the interest of "spicing up" the program, a "surprise" guest joins in the discussion just to put everyone in studio on edge. This happened to me while I was on a phone-in show a few years ago on Alaska Public Radio. Suddenly the former editor of Ramparts Magazine, now professional conservative David Horowitz was on the line from California to attack NPR as a nest of commies. I was happy to debate Mr. Horowitz, but I thought it was unprofessional of the program not to let me know in advance. The phrase "sandbagged" came to mind.

None of that happened on The John Oakley Show. Cole and Menzies clearly knew their assigned roles and they would dive in with a lot of wit and smart alecky comments and needling. They clearly enjoyed trying to beat each other up - rhetorically at least. John Oakley, the host threw in a few acerbic comments of his own, then took one call from someone with a very strong Russian accent and before we knew it, a half an hour had passed and we were off the air.

What I liked about it was the fast pace and quick wit. There was a lot of thinking on one's feet by the guests. I confess I got tired at one point of being the voice of moderation and I threw a couple of incendiary devices as well. At the end, we agreed that O'Reilly might be guilty of incitement, but only if the FBI could prove that the alleged killer was a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor.

The Bob Edwards Show is the opposite in tone and pacing. I was the only guest and Bob (who used to host NPR's Morning Edition for more than 20 years) gave me lots of time to talk about ombudsmanship, the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) and a few other things besides. Sirius XM Radio may be commercial in its aims, but Bob's show still has a lot of public radio DNA. Not a lot of one-liners here, although I think I heard Bob laugh at a couple of my jokes.

Both shows have enormous value to the listeners. The John Oakley Show is about fireworks; The Bob Edwards Show is more like a coal fire. You can't warm yourself intellectually from the first and you might not be dazzled by the second. But both have their undoubted value and it seems very loyal audiences. But my guess is that there is not a lot of audience cross-over. Red and blue (North) America are still very much two solitudes on the air.