Suddenly one of the hot political topics is the question of what it takes in this age of talk radio and the Internet to be a reporter.
The discussion of that topic seems to split neatly into two parts. The first has to do with whether a half-dozen radio talk show hosts, by broadcasting their programs from Iraq, can provide useful information overlooked or ignored by traditional news outlets.
The second has to do with the unavoidable fact that the Internet has created a forum for thousands of people who are now free to transmit their feelings, thoughts and observations to what is really a worldwide audience.
As to the talkers taking their programs to Iraq, not much thought is required. If talk radio can provide information not otherwise available from Iraq, it would be foolish to object simply on the basis that the hosts may lack journalistic training.
It is quite plain that the information industry is being transformed. The immediate question is whether those changes are for the better. Are these new voices really journalists or not? And does it matter?
Those who have been around the business of journalism for a few years know that this is not the first time the topic of journalistic qualifications has presented itself. About 30 years ago, a federal lawsuit was filed in Denver intended to challenge the practice of having the Denver Police Department issue press credentials. Reporters who had the press cards could cross police and fire department lines. Those who didn’t have them could not.
Press credentials
The controversy over this practice developed when a black reporter for a small local publication applied for a press card and was turned down on the grounds that he had a felony conviction in his past.
In rejecting that reporter, the police department effectively declared that it, not the publication involved, had the right to decide who could and who could not report the news.
The federal judge refused to issue a clear decision in the case, saying that at least initially it should be up to the publications and the Colorado Press Association to work out the problem. Work it out they did. The media outlets stopped asking the police department for its approval and simply issued credentials on their own, quickly re-establishing the principle that a news organization can decide who is and who is not a reporter.
Presumably the First Amendment would be undisturbed if a newspaper or magazine wanted to hire nothing but former felons or former hairdressers or former flagpole sitters to compose its news and commentaries.
It is still not a bad principle. The availability of the Internet in millions of homes has done far more than simply enlarge the range of political opinion, whether that opinion is shallow or profound. Most important, it has provided ready access to a whole variety of original documents, including the full text of court opinions, federal and state statutes as well as transcripts or recordings of practically all important interviews.
These documents are the intellectual fodder on which anyone can now chew.
“New media” credibility
It should go without saying that the “new media” has a long way to go to firmly establish its credibility, but then it is also true that members of the “old media” have been having their problems. No less than The New York Times and Time magazine are currently in a huge controversy over whether their reporters have an obligation to protect the identity of a confidential source.
Although the underlying issue in this case is the potentially unlawful “outing” of a CIA agent, the question lurking in the wings is whether news organizations rely too heavily on unnamed sources.
Unnamed sources are a mixed blessing. There are examples of unnamed sources providing vital information, but there are many other instances in which the unnamed source shamelessly used a reporter to advance a narrow economic or political interest.
We are about to find out which pattern applied in the current case. The allegation is that Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, was the source of the stories about the CIA agent.
If that turns out to be true, it will be very difficult for anyone to argue that either he, or the august publications involved, were very intently focused on anything that might be called the greater public good.
Al Knight of Fairplay is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.
