Standards for Journalists? Are Bloggers Journalists?

Columnist and blogger Rob Asghar, one of my daily must-clicks on the Internet, wrote me last week to pose two questions:

• Should journalists take a Hippocratic Oath?
• Are bloggers journalists?

I cogitated on those two issues for awhile and responded in this way (with a few subsequent corrections):

Rob:
Those are two interesting questions.

(1) As regards a Hippocratic Oath for journalists, I suppose that some sort of an oath would be appropriate for all people as they embark on professions, journalists included. I was given a series of charges at the time of my ordination, charges that were analogous to the Hippocratic Oath. Persons who enter government service, including the military, take oaths.

Other than examples like these, oaths are a rarity these days. Ask the average person today and I'm sure they would tell you, in one way or another, that oaths are anachronistic, just words.

That's because we don't imbue words with the kind of power that those in Biblical and other times did. The poignant scene of Isaac, deceived into giving the blessing to Jacob meant for Esau and because of words' power, being unable to reverse himself, exemplifies this.

But, in spite of our post-modern disdain oaths, a formal commitment on the part of journalists to a certain set of common principles and standards might not be a bad idea.

But two points:

(a) Those who dismiss oaths as being "just words" do have a point, even from a Biblical, Christian perspective. Quakers have often refused to take oaths, claiming to obey Jesus' admonition never to swear by anything, to so speak the truth that our answers will always boil down to Yes or No. (I couldn't help but think of that today when I heard some pol in Washington responding to a simple Yes or No question with a convoluted, non-response response.) The taking of an oath is meaningless if there is no intent to abide by its words.

(b) A difficulty associated with establishing some sort of oath for journalists is hinted at by your second question. That difficulty can be summed up in this way: We don't have a clear definition of what a journalist is. Is a pundit a journalist? How about a television talk show host who makes jokes about current events? A satirist on The Daily Show? A blogger? A DJ at a small town radio station who reads the news? A columnist?

Maybe in any oath that's established, the term journalist should be defined broadly in it, allowing those who have passed some professional exam to decide whether they consider themselves journalists who will abide by it or not. Information-consumers could then decide whether persons so credentialed have credibility in their eyes.

(2) There are so many different kinds of blogs and bloggers. Hugh Hewitt says that the average blogger is a teenage girl who uses it to talk about her day. For most people, blogs are nothing other than diaries or journals, a perfectly legitimate use of the medium.

There are lots of other kinds of blogs, of course. But, for example, I don't consider myself a journalist, only a preacher who likes to write. I wouldn't say that even people like Hewitt, Kos, or Glenn Reynolds are journalists.

But, here's the deal: I can't tell you with certainty why I say that. We disseminate information, although usually in a highly-repackaged and opinion-drenched form. Yet, we do have a responsibility to be truthful and factual, I think.

In a nutshell: My gut tells me that bloggers aren't journalists. But I could be persuaded that I'm wrong in that judgment.

I hope this helps.

God bless!

Mark

Rob is working on a column on these subjects, so be sure to check out what he writes either here or in your local newspaper. Rob is one of the best writers around!