Windypundit

• The Profession of Journalism?
  

  Kip links with some derision to an op-ed by journalism professor David Hazinski about the trend toward citizen journalism. Kip, who has other unkind things to say about the piece, quotes this bit:

  Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer."

  Kip's objection:

  It is precisely the fact that occupational journalists are not "professionals" on the same plane with physicians (or nurses, attorneys, veterinarians, accountants or even optometrists) that is finally being exposed by blogging.

  Elsewhere, Kip wrote:

  ...journalism is not a true profession, therefore there is no such thing as a "professional journalist"...

  Actually, I think anyone who gets paid for journalism is a professional journalist, but that doesn't make journalism a profession. It's unfortunate that the word root has these two different meanings, but I think the first one is as correct as the second.

  That said, one of the distinguishing features of a profession is that you can get sued if you screw it up, and that just doesn't happen to journalists, as far as I know.

  I'm not just talking about getting sued for libel or invasion of privacy—we can all be sued for those—I'm talking about a legal obligation to give correct information. If journalism was a profession, then licensed journalists who screwed up a story could be sued by readers who relied on it and suffered damages.

  Kip continues:

  Occupational journalists face no mandatory educational curricula. They face no licensing examinations, no continuing education requirements, and need not subscribe to any legally binding code of ethics.
  
  The very fact that occupational journalists often cannot see the difference between a journalist and a surgeon is why they are increasingly being ignored. They are not credentialed -- and it drives them batty that laypersons no longer see any need afford them the respect that they afford the true (i.e., credentialed) professions.

  From my reading of Hazinski's piece, that's precisely what he'd like to change, with national standards and licensing—much of which would depend on journalism professors like him.

  Although Kip characterizes this as "licensing bloggers" I really don't think that's where Hazinski was going. I think he's mostly trying to warn mainstream media companies to be careful about publishing web stories or photos contributed by outsiders, and to that end, he has several recommendations:

  • Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.
  • They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning.
  • Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified.

  (There's so much wrong in that last paragraph. I'm not sure which is worse, that he thinks an uncertified journalist is as dangerous as an uncertified paramedic or that—by lumping them in with volunteer teachers and cops—he seems to think paramedics are are some kind of volunteer doctor.)

  The national standards and certification are a silly idea, but the training is not. I do some citizen journalism for the Chi-Town Daily News, and we have regular training sessions where experienced journalists explain the rules and the tricks of the trade. The stories are small-time and local, but that's kind of the point of citizen journalism.

• Evolution, Faith Rainbows, and Eminent Domain
  

  Random shots around the web:

  • Some scientists think the invention of agriculture was so revolutionary that it made us humans start evolving really really fast. For example (if I understand correctly) lactose intolerance is not a defect. Rather, the ability to digest milk long after infancy is a recent mutation that hasn't spread to the entire species yet.
  • You just know political speeches really are planned like this.
  • Marathon Pundit has been all over the eminent domain fight in Lincoln Square, which ended in a minor victory as Alderman Schulter backed down on his plan to give someone else's land to private developers.
  • But Evil never sleeps: Now the city wants to take some land in the 1800 block of Fullerton.

  That last one has this great bit:

  Department of Planning and Development spokesman Pete Scales said the city could eventually use eminent domain to take control of the land, though it will first negotiate with the property owner.

  Some negotiation. "I could shoot you and take your wallet off your dead body, but for now I'm being a nice guy by asking you to give it to me voluntarily."

  (Hat tip: Kip)

• Something For Me To Ponder...
  

  A couple of weeks ago, Windypundit was getting about 300 visits per day.

  I just checked, and now it's getting about 400 visits per day.

  Apparently, the less I post, the more popular I become.

• No Enjoyment of Life
  

  It must be a week or three since Norm Pattis blogged this, but I've been meaning to say something, and it might as well be now.

  Norm starts with a hypothetical call about a wrongful death suit from a potential client:

  He had bronchitis. The doctors failed to diagnose it on time. As a result, he died; his heart just gave out. The decedent was only 47 years old. You quickly calculate loss of earning potential for the twenty or so years he could have worked.

  What did do for work, you ask? He didn't work. Why is that you ask. He couldn't, you see he was mentally, er, challenged. Your heart sinks. Death is tragic, but death without ascertainable economic loss is a tragedy only a plaintiff's lawyer can fully appreciate.

  But he so loved life, the caller tells you. Each time there was a fire in the neighborhood, he would run to the scene and direct traffic. You are tempted, but still there is nagging doubt. How much can such a case be worth?

  It turns out this case is actually real (but not one of Norm's) and it's just been decided:

  A Connecticut jury just answered, awarding the estate of the decedent in this case $3.5 million for the loss of enjoyment of life. No part of the verdict reflected damages for economic loss...

  Norm doesn't like that:

  Forgive my cynicism, but the verdict seems like a triumph of politically correct sympathy over common sense. The decedent has lost the ability to enjoy life...But tell me, reader, how do you compensate a man for a life not lived? It just can't be done.

  I do not mean to suggest that a mentally handicapped person can't enjoy life. But this verdict simply makes no sense. ... [P]erhaps it's time to revisit whether it makes sense to provide compensation for the loss of enjoyment of life. The simple fact is a death cannot be undone, even by creative lawyers playing on the heartstrings of a jury.

  I'm apalled beyond words.

  I know our legal system tends to calculate civil damages for a death based on lost earning potential, but until now I didn't think about how awful that is. Norm's stark summary makes me feel a gut-level revulsion that's hard to describe.

  "Loss of enjoyment of life" does matter. It's the only thing that matters.

  The whole point of working for a living is to earn money, and the whole point of earning money is to buy goods and services for consumption. And the whole point of consumption is to improve the quality of your life. The loss of income is only important because it reduces your ability to enjoy life.

  What Norm's concern