![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.counterpunch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/JPB-Senate-press-pass-sharpened-92-93-96-680x348.jpg\")
\n\u201cWhat is a journalist?\u201d is a contemporary equivalent of the ancient question, \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d The U.S. government\u2019s prosecution of Julian Assange hinges on the assertion that he is not a journalist and should be punished like a spy for a hostile country. The controversy over Assange is part of broader clashes over the meaning of journalism and freedom of the press across the United States.<\/p>\n
I recently wrangled on this topic with former top-ranked New York City radio host Brian Wilson, with whom I do a weekly podcast. In one of his Substack<\/a> essays on the topic, Brian stated that \u201canyone claiming the title \u2018Journalist\u2019 must come with the degreed qualifications\u201d\u2014possessing a journalism degree. He added, \u201cI take principled offense at those who appropriate a title they never earned\u201d by not possessing a journalism degree. Commenting on a recent dispute over the firing of former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Brian mentioned that some of the individuals that NBC identified as \u201cjournalists\u201d had not graduated from college. Brian declared, \u201cWouldn\u2019t you expect a professional \u2018journalist\u2019 to have bona fide credentials on a par with other professions\u201d\u2014such as doctors and lawyers \u2014\u201dto qualify for their titles\u201d?<\/p>\n Brian stated that a journalism degree \u201cshould be obviously important to anyone looking for Integrity and Accuracy in the news.\u201d But ethics is a shaky defense for \u201cdegreed Journalists.\u201d In the past thirty years, the percentage of people working for print and broadcast media outlets who have journalism degrees has skyrocketed. At the same time, public trust in the media collapsed.<\/p>\n Brian stated that in all the years that he knew me and followed my work, he had never heard of anyone refer to me as a \u201cjournalist.\u201d Actually, that is probably the most common non-profane term folks use to describe me.<\/p>\n But I am a mere Hokie dropout,<\/strong> since I didn\u2019t finish a four-year sojourn at Virginia Tech. I never took any journalism classes.\u00a0On the other hand, I zealously pursued classes and independent studies with professors to become a better writer. <\/strong>Once I took all those classes, I dropped out because having a degree from Va. Tech wouldn\u2019t open the type of markets I planned to target. Early on, I found some editors that judged me by the words I submitted, not by any academic pedigree.<\/p>\n Maybe my career illustrates the shifting definitions and standards for journalism. After I moved to Washington in mid-1980, I applied to be a writer or researcher at the Heritage Foundation. At that point, Heritage did not have a grandiose law firm-style headquarters on Capitol Hill a stone\u2019s throw from Senate office buildings. Instead, it was located in a ramshackle old wooden building on the dicey borderline of the safe part of Capitol Hill.<\/p>\n I was interviewed by a trim, mid-30ish guy who was immaculately coiffed and, despite the brutally hot Washington summer day, wearing a formal vest from a three-piece suit. His vibe that day left no doubt that he was conferring a celestial blessing by meeting with me.<\/p>\n He beamed as he sat in a swivel chair on the other side of a broad table. After the standard pleasantries, he looked down his nose and picked up the resume and stack of clips I had sent the previous week.<\/p>\n \u201cHmmm\u2026\u201c he said almost absent-mindedly, as if talking to himself. \u201cYou\u2019ve been published in New York Times<\/em>\u2026Chicago Tribune<\/em>\u2026Boston Globe<\/em>\u2026Washinton Star<\/em>\u2026Nice.\u201d<\/p>\n When his skimming reached the bottom of the page, his face brightened with a triumphal gloat. \u201cOh!\u201d he happily announced. A pregnant pause was followed by judicious raising of eyebrows to signify astonishment, if not shock and horror.<\/p>\n \u201cI see that you didn\u2019t finish college.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYep,\u201d I replied.<\/p>\n He tilted back in his chair, crossed his arms, and, with a condescending smirk, solemnly announced: \u201cMr. Bovard, you\u2019ve got to pay your dues.\u201d<\/p>\n I struggled mightily to repress a Cheshire cat grin.<\/p>\n \u201cGo back to college, finish your degree, and then contact us after you graduate,\u201d he announced as if he were bestowing the most valuable advice I\u2019d ever receive.<\/p>\n I burst out laughing but preserved a modicum of decorum by not falling out of my chair. The \u201cinterview\u201d ended moments later. If employers fixated on degrees and nothing else, I was as happy to ax them from my list as they were to disqualify me.<\/p>\n Four years later, I was writing regularly for Wall Street Journal<\/em>, Reader\u2019s Digest<\/em>, USA Today<\/em>, Washington Times<\/em> and other newspapers. I was often covering hearings and other events on Capitol Hill. When I sought a press pass from the Senate Press Gallery as a freelance writer, I was given a couple 90-day temporary passes. When I returned for an extension, I ended up palavering with a couple Senate staffers who helped run the gallery. They were friendly guys with none of the officiousness that tainted other Hill staffers.<\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t give full-year passes to freelancers,\u201d declared the older guy. \u201cThis would be a lot easier if you had a permanent affiliation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYep, I understand,\u201d I shrugged.<\/p>\n His colleague had been nodding his head and then added, \u201cIf instead of being a freelance writer, if you were \u2018Bovard News Service\u2019\u2026.<\/p>\n \u201cHEY!\u201d I responded. \u201cI am Bovard News Service!\u201d<\/p>\n We shared a hearty laugh and for the next twenty years, I received annual Senate Press Gallery passes for Bovard News Service.<\/p>\n That press pass provided access to the Senate and House press galleries overlooking the congressional chambers. I spent many hours in the front row overlooking floor debates and colloquies, especially on topics on which I had closely followed and written.<\/p>\n At first, I was stunned by the pervasive falsehoods I heard from both political parties. But studying the eyes, movements, and vibe of veteran members of Congress, I soon realized that the Capitol was a Twilight Zone where facts and truth were simply irrelevant. Almost no one showed a speck of remorse or bad conscience regardless of their howlers. They weren\u2019t lying: they were simply talking to their personal or party\u2019s advantage. Words were simply tokens that congressmen played to seize power, burnish their image, or boost spending for a pet cause. When politicians contradicted themselves a few minutes or days later, it didn\u2019t matter; that was irrelevant compared to legislative victories. The longer a person \u201cserved\u201d in Congress, the more immune they became to both reality and decency.<\/p>\n Congressional debates often resembled a transcript from a village idiot convention. During battles over the 1990 farm bill, several congressmen characterized proposals to end handouts to big farmers as suspiciously akin to communism. Rep. Robin Tallon (D-SC), warned, \u201cWe do not have to imagine what life would be like without a responsible farm program. We need only look to the Soviet Union where people will wait in line for hours in hopes that they can buy a small portion of beef or bread.\u201d Rep. Pat Roberts (R-KS) seconded the alarm: \u201cThis effort to end participation of our most successful farmers and investors in the farm programs sounds a lot like the way the Poles and Russians organized their agricultural policy before the Berlin Wall came down.\u201d Communism was a bad thing, and ending farm subsidies was a bad thing, so anyone who advocated ending subsidies was a communist. Reducing political control over agriculture was the worst kind of tyranny. Those gems of logic sparked a Wall Street Journal<\/em> piece titled, \u201cHow to Think Like a Congressman<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n In prior eras, the notion that politicians are untrustworthy rascals was part of American folklore. As Russell Baker, The New York Times<\/em> Senate correspondent, lamented in 1962, \u201cI spend my life sitting on marble floors, waiting for somebody to come out [of closed congressional hearings] and lie to me.\u201d In a different era, Baker\u2019s candor earned him a Times<\/em> columnist spot.<\/p>\n But somewhere along the line, many or most Washington journalists lost their radar for government BS. The percentage of J-school grads became higher in Washington with each decade. Many of them were proud to write \u201cThe Government Told Me So\u201d stories. Did the new cadres lose their instinctive skepticism in journalism school? I got some of my best stories in ways that would horrify journalism professors, including \u201cHow I Robbed the World Bank<\/a>\u201d and \u201cHeisting the Secret U.S. Tariff Code<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n The changing standards were exemplified by Mary Lou Forbes<\/a>, a Washington Times<\/em> commentary editor who I wrote more than a hundred pieces for over twenty-five years. She was a sweet lady who was tough as nails. She won a Pulitzer Prize in 1959 for her coverage of Virginia desegregation battles while she worked at The Washington Star<\/em>. In one of the final phone conversations we had before her death from cancer, she went on a tear about how she disliked the word \u201cjournalist.\u201d She explained, \u201cIn my day, we were reporters\u201d\u2014a term she liked because it had zero pretension. In my R.I.P. blog<\/a> tribute to her, I wrote that \u201cher rare combination of grace, toughness, and sound judgment will not soon be equaled in Washington.\u201d She never asked me whether I had a college degree, and I didn\u2019t realize until checking recently that she had been a math major before she dropped out of the University of Maryland in the 1940s.<\/p>\n I view \u201cjournalist\u201d as an occupation, not as a title or an honorific. In daily life, the term is simply another one of my flags of convenience\u2014along with writer, reporter, investigator, muckraker, hooligan, policy analyst, author, and \u201cinnocent bystander.\u201d<\/p>\n But the push for professionalization of journalism snags Assange and brigades of citizen journalists who expose official wrongdoing. A 2022 survey found almost half of American television journalists favor government<\/a> licensing for their occupation. This is indicative of how those journalists fail to understand either the nature of government or of journalism. Or perhaps they believe that kowtowing to officialdom is the high road to truth\u2014or at least the greatest glory they will ever achieve? Perhaps this is what happens when the press corps becomes full of journalism majors with no clue on the long history of oppression.<\/p>\n Licensing knuckleheads have an ally in Oklahoma Sen. Nathan Dahm, who recently proposed the \u201cCommon Sense Freedom<\/a> of Press Control Act.\u201d Dahm, the state chairman of the Republican Party from Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, touted a bill to compel journalists to become licensed, comply with criminal background checks, complete a \u201cpropaganda-free\u201d training course approved by politicians or their appointees, and submit to quarterly drug tests. Regrettably, there are no current proposals to require state legislators or members of Congress to take regular IQ tests.<\/p>\n The First Amendment was never entitled to be a class privilege of the media establishment. Squabbles over who is a journalist distract from the grave peril of government oppression for anyone who offends Uncle Sam. After Julian Assange was hit by a federal indictment, a New York Times<\/em> editorial declared that the charges were \u201caimed straight at the heart of the First Amendment\u201d and would have a \u201cchilling effect on American journalism as it has been practiced for generations.\u201d Assange and Wikileaks provided a huge booster shot to democracy by alerting Americans to how they had been deceived and misgoverned.<\/p>\n Assange\u2019s courage and credibility matter far more than his credentials. But the fight over his fate is taking place in a time of growing threats to freedom of the press. 55% of American adults support government suppression of \u201cfalse information,\u201d even though only 20% trust the government. Relying on dishonest officials to eradicate \u201cfalse information\u201d is not the height of prudence. A September 2023 poll revealed that almost half of Democrats believed that free speech should be legal \u201conly under certain circumstances.\u201d Support for censorship is stronger among young folks\u2014a grim harbinger for American freedom. The peril is compounded because The New York Times<\/em> and Washington Post<\/em>have jumped on the Disinformation Suppression Bandwagon.\u00a0 Much of the establishment media has zero sympathy for average Americans who have been silenced by federal fists or string-pulling.<\/p>\n At a time of growing perils, journalists, writers, muckrakers, and hooligans need to make common cause to resist the latest wave of repression.\u00a0In this battle for the survival of freedom, there is even room for Hokie dropouts. But any journalist who favors government licensing of their occupation deserves all the tar and feathers we can find.<\/p>\n An earlier version of this piece was published by the Libertarian Institute.<\/em><\/p>\n \n The post Defining \u201cJournalist\u201d and Saving Freedom of the Press<\/a> appeared first on CounterPunch.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cWhat is a journalist?\u201d is a contemporary equivalent of the ancient question, \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d The U.S. government\u2019s prosecution of Julian Assange hinges on the assertion that he is not a journalist and should be punished like a spy for a hostile country. The controversy over Assange is part of broader clashes over the meaning More<\/a><\/p>\n The post Defining \u201cJournalist\u201d and Saving Freedom of the Press<\/a> appeared first on CounterPunch.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":175,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603872"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/175"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1603872"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603872\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1604022,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603872\/revisions\/1604022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1603872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1603872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1603872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}