Should SPJ provide government-recognized license for journalists?
The Oregon flap over defining journalists is causing some people to suggest that trade organizations (e.g., SPJ) should license journalists for official government recognition. Gulp.
The issue arose recently because of Oregon's open meeting law that allows journalists to sit in on executive sessions as long as they don't quote anything from the meeting (unless it's a subject that shouldn't be talked about in secret). As far as I know, this is the only state in the country with such a provision in the open meeting law (some states allow bodies to invite people into executive sessions, but this is the only state that requires agencies to allow journalists to sit in).
A blogger challenged the city of Lake Oswego for prohibiting him from sitting in (see below). When the city tried to develop a policy defnining "journalists" folks pounced on them. Rightly so. So now the city is trying to get a statewide discussion going, potentially leading to new legislation. This is where things could get a little funky.
Currently, it sounds like the bulk of the conversation is on how to define "news gathering representatives," or whether real journalists should be licensed by trade organizations. Check out an Oregon Public Radio show today on the subject. I can't speak on behalf of SPJ, but I don't like this idea. If organizations or governments can license journalists then they can take licenses away.
In my opinion, SPJ should not license journalists and government should not be in the place to decide who gets to sit in and who doesn't. I think there's a possible solution, and we can avoid defining who is a journalist and who isn't. The main purpose of allowing journalists in executive sessions is to make sure there are watchdogs to make sure the public body doesn't talk about stuff they shouldn't. Some states require public bodies to tape record executive sessions and if someone questions whether the discussion was appropriate that person can ask a judge to listen to it in camera. So there we have a checking function without government having to dictate who is a journalist and who isn't. As a former City Hall reporter who covered meetings in Oregon and Washington state, I know that having a reporter sitting in is effective at preventing hanky panky, but recording meetings instead might provide some government accountability without having to give journalists special privileges over citizens.
What do you think?