Republican lawmaker says journalists should face a registry to work in South Carolina

[GMDino]

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20160119/PC1603/160119305

Quote:An Upstate lawmaker who tried to keep the Confederate battle flag flying and whose campaign spending habits were part of a Post and Courier examination of Statehouse money trails says it’s time to register journalists in the state.

State Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, on Tuesday introduced a bill called the “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law.”

The bill would create requirements for people wanting to work as a journalist for a media outlet, and also before that outlet could hire anyone for a reporting position.

The measure is at least the second bill filed in the Statehouse this year with virtually no chance of advancing but is meant to reflect a lawmaker’s personal political statement.

State Rep. Mia McLeod, D-Columbia, earlier offered a proposal to make it more difficult for men to get medication to treat erectile dysfunction or get access to such drugs as Viagra and Cialis. She acknowledged the idea is likely to go nowhere but wanted to send a message to the male-dominated and Republican-controlled General Assembly about laws governing women, including restricting their access to abortion.

Pitts told The Post and Courier his bill is not a reaction to any news story featuring him and that he is “not a press hater.” Rather, it’s to stimulate discussion over how he sees Second Amendment rights being treated by the printed press and television news. He added that the bill is modeled directly after the “concealed weapons permitting law.”

“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms,” Pitts said. “With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the six o’clock news and the printed press has no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership.”

Under the bill, the Secretary of State’s Office would be tasked with keeping a “responsible journalism registry” and creating the criteria with the help of a panel on what qualifies a person as a journalist — similar to doctors and lawyers, Pitts said.

Pitts said the criminal penalties mentioned in his bill for violations would be “minor fines” similar to those concealed weapons permit holders face.

A journalist—defined as a person who in his professional capacity collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information for a media outlet, including an employee or an independent contractor—that is not registered would be fined $25 to $500, would be cited with a misdemeanor and could be imprisoned up to 30 days, based on the level of offense.

The lawmaker questioned whether working journalists actually follow the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which outlines principles for professional journalists to follow to ensure fair and accurate reporting.

“Do journalists, by definition, really adhere to a code of ethics?” Pitts said. “The problem that I have with the printed press is, like I said, it appears especially in the last decade to me each story has become more editorial than reporting. It might just be my perception.”

Charles Bierbauer, a University of South Carolina journalism professor, veteran newsman and dean of the College of Information and Communications, was one of several media representatives in the state who said Pitts’ proposal had no chance of ever becoming reality.

“It says here in the building where I work that ‘Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ ” Bierbauer said, referring to wording posted in the USC journalism school.

Of Pitts’ proposal he added, “These are nuisance bills that allow an elected official to say, ‘I proposed to bring down those muckrakers.’ ”

The bill was sent to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry. Pitts is hopeful for a hearing, at the least, and he said he received strong support from several other representatives.

“Let’s be realistic; this is an election year,” Pitts said. “It is well into the second year and the Senate is not going to do anything this year and certainly not going to do anything controversial. So no, I don’t anticipate it going anywhere. Would I mind getting a hearing on it to further the debate and discussion? I would love to have that.”

Pitts, who is on the House Ethics Committee, was featured in the Post and Courier report “Capitol Gains” last year for his trips out west to Alaska, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana to hobnob at summits with “sportsmen legislators.” On one occasion, he received a $1,104 trip to attend the annual National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses Summit in Sunriver, Ore., where he also went hunting. He used campaign money to gas up his rental car on the trip. There was nothing illegal in the spending.

Pitts also was the leading advocate for keeping the Confederate flag flying outside the Statehouse during last summer’s flag debate in the wake of the mass shooting at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston.

Bill Rogers, director of the S.C. Press Association, which represents 15 daily and 89 weekly newspapers in the state, called the bill “outrageous and unconstitutional.”

“The Constitution doesn’t say anything about responsible journalism, it says free journalism,” Rogers said, adding that the SCPA encourages responsible journalism. “I don’t trust the government to say who’s qualified to be a journalist, and I’m surprised he does.”

Rogers said his organization, which The Post and Courier is a member of, accredits only newspaper journalists in the state. Despite Pitts lumping blogs in with other media outlets, Rogers said it’s crucial to note that “credibility” is judged differently between newspapers and blogs.

[*michaelsean*]

Register your gun, register your reporter. Sounds fair.

[GMDino]

(01-20-2016, 12:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Register your gun, register your reporter.  Sounds fair.

I think that's the point he's trying to make...badly.

[BmorePat87]

A well regulated press being necessary to the security of a free state...

We already have limits on the 1st Amendment. I can't print lies. I can't call for an open rebellion. I have to get a permit if I want to hold a large protest. If he believes the press is printing lies about him, he can challenge it in civil court.

[StLucieBengal]

This is just dumb. I love this age of the citizen journalist.

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2016, 12:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A well regulated press being necessary to the security of a free state...

We already have limits on the 1st Amendment. I can't print lies. I can't call for an open rebellion. I have to get a permit if I want to hold a large protest. If he believes the press is printing lies about him, he can challenge it in civil court.

Exactly what I was going to say. A journalist or publication that publishes something that is a lie, that could be considered malicious, they are held responsible for that. Just look at Rolling Stone right now in their battle with UVA. There are limits to the First Amendment already.

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2016, 02:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is just dumb. I love this age of the citizen journalist.

I like it and I don't. The internet is filled with so many idiots posting erroneous information it can be difficult to wade through it to find anything good. Combined with the number of their fellow idiots that swallow what they are saying hook, line, and sinker and we are just creating one big misinformed society. I like the openness of it, but I don't like what it is causing. If that makes any sense at all.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-20-2016, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I like it and I don't. The internet is filled with so many idiots posting erroneous information it can be difficult to wade through it to find anything good. Combined with the number of their fellow idiots that swallow what they are saying hook, line, and sinker and we are just creating one big misinformed society. I like the openness of it, but I don't like what it is causing. If that makes any sense at all.

Given the specific context of your reply.  It makes complete sense.  Well put.

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 12:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Register your gun, register your reporter.  Sounds fair.

That is because you are completely ignorant of the reasoning behind the laws in our country.

When courts look at what limits on rights are "reasonable" they weigh all sorts of issues regarding public safety, individual property right, etc.  There are many reasonable limits on the First Amendment already in place based on these decisions.  But just being pissed at gun control advocates is not even close to a basis for a limit on a free press.  That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

[Benton]

(01-20-2016, 12:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Register your gun, register your reporter.  Sounds fair.

except... Reporters aren't lethal weapons. They don't have some kind of special sway. In the end, journalists are only exercising a person's first amendment rights. That's it. Anything a report does someone off the street can do, as far as going into a public meeting or public building and requesting public documents.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-20-2016, 10:03 PM)Benton Wrote: except... Reporters aren't lethal weapons. They don't have some kind of special sway. In the end, journalists are only exercising a person's first amendment rights. That's it. Anything a report does someone off the street can do, as far as going into a public meeting or public building and requesting public documents.

Hmm, no one ever said "the pen is mightier than the sword", did they?

[fredtoast]

(01-20-2016, 10:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, no one ever said "the pen is mightier than the sword", did they?

Yep, someone said it (but you clearly do not know who) and it was meant to explain how NON-LETHAL words can be as effective as deadly weapons in producing an effect without killing people.

Get it now?

[BmorePat87]

(01-20-2016, 10:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, no one ever said "the pen is mightier than the sword", did they?

[StLucieBengal]

Belsnick Wrote:I like it and I don't. The internet is filled with so many idiots posting erroneous information it can be difficult to wade through it to find anything good. Combined with the number of their fellow idiots that swallow what they are saying hook, line, and sinker and we are just creating one big misinformed society. I like the openness of it, but I don't like what it is causing. If that makes any sense at all.

Better than having gate keepers controlling what they determined as news. At least this way we are each responsible for what we each consume.

Over time people will become more aware.

[Vlad]

(01-20-2016, 10:03 PM)Benton Wrote: except... Reporters aren't lethal weapons. They don't have some kind of special sway. In the end, journalists are only exercising a person's first amendment rights. That's it. Anything a report does someone off the street can do, as far as going into a public meeting or public building and requesting public documents.

They have a lot of special sway.

A 2010 report from the Media Research Center revealed the following:


A poll of journalists by the American Society of Newspaper editors found that self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in newsrooms 61 percent to 15 percent.


More than four-fifths of surveyed journalists said they voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1964 and 1976.

In 1992, 88 percent of surveyed D.C. reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton for president. In 2004, the same group said it supported Democrat John Kerry over
President George W. Bush by a 12-to-1 margin.


In 2009, a whopping 96 percent of the staff working for the online Slate magazine said they supported Barack Obama for president.

And get this – in the American Society of Newspaper Editors poll, 71 percent of editors admitted that reporters’ opinions “sometimes” or “often” influence their coverage.

Journalists are cheerleaders for the democrat party, and they seem these days to report their opinions, not news.

The tone is also different when reporting a Republican charged of wrongdoing then it is that of a Dem.  A very accusatory style of reporting when its a Republican, but they put their kid gloves on when its a Democrat.

It recall when Sarah Palin said that "Paul Revere warned the British" this "news" wouldn't go away, but when some Democrat from Delaware said he wished Sarah Palin was on the plane that crashed in Alaska killing all aboard, it was barely touched upon.

And the censorship. Most recent when the latest news of Hillaries email scandal was swept under the rug in favor of a story waaaaaay more newsworthy...Palins endorsement of Trump.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/01/19/networks-censor-massive-hillary-e-mail-bombshell-spend-over-10

She is the democrat candidate for president and must be protected.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 02:27 AM)Vlad Wrote: They have a lot of special sway.

A 2010 report from the Media Research Center revealed the following:


A poll of journalists by the American Society of Newspaper editors found that self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in newsrooms 61 percent to 15 percent.


More than four-fifths of surveyed journalists said they voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1964 and 1976.

In 1992, 88 percent of surveyed D.C. reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton for president. In 2004, the same group said it supported Democrat John Kerry over
President George W. Bush by a 12-to-1 margin.


In 2009, a whopping 96 percent of the staff working for the online Slate magazine said they supported Barack Obama for president.

And get this – in the American Society of Newspaper Editors poll, 71 percent of editors admitted that reporters’ opinions “sometimes” or “often” influence their coverage.

Journalists are cheerleaders for the democrat party, and they seem these days to report their opinions, not news.

The tone is also different when reporting a Republican charged of wrongdoing then it is that of a Dem.  A very accusatory style of reporting when its a Republican, but they put their kid gloves on when its a Democrat.

It recall when Sarah Palin said that "Paul Revere warned the British" this "news" wouldn't go away, but when some Democrat from Delaware said he wished Sarah Palin was on the plane that crashed in Alaska killing all aboard, it was barely touched upon.

And the censorship. Most recent when the latest news of Hillaries email scandal was swept under the rug in favor of a story waaaaaay more newsworthy...Palins endorsement of Trump.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/01/19/networks-censor-massive-hillary-e-mail-bombshell-spend-over-10

She is the democrat candidate for president and must be protected.

What does any of this have ot do with the topic of the thread?


BTW You forgot to mention Benghazi.  You need to return to the echo chamber for further indoctrination.  

[Benton]

(01-21-2016, 02:27 AM)Vlad Wrote: They have a lot of special sway.

A 2010 report from the Media Research Center revealed the following:


A poll of journalists by the American Society of Newspaper editors found that self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in newsrooms 61 percent to 15 percent.


More than four-fifths of surveyed journalists said they voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1964 and 1976.

In 1992, 88 percent of surveyed D.C. reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton for president. In 2004, the same group said it supported Democrat John Kerry over
President George W. Bush by a 12-to-1 margin.


In 2009, a whopping 96 percent of the staff working for the online Slate magazine said they supported Barack Obama for president.

And get this – in the American Society of Newspaper Editors poll, 71 percent of editors admitted that reporters’ opinions “sometimes” or “often” influence their coverage.

Journalists are cheerleaders for the democrat party, and they seem these days to report their opinions, not news.

The tone is also different when reporting a Republican charged of wrongdoing then it is that of a Dem.  A very accusatory style of reporting when its a Republican, but they put their kid gloves on when its a Democrat.

It recall when Sarah Palin said that "Paul Revere warned the British" this "news" wouldn't go away, but when some Democrat from Delaware said he wished Sarah Palin was on the plane that crashed in Alaska killing all aboard, it was barely touched upon.

And the censorship. Most recent when the latest news of Hillaries email scandal was swept under the rug in favor of a story waaaaaay more newsworthy...Palins endorsement of Trump.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/01/19/networks-censor-massive-hillary-e-mail-bombshell-spend-over-10

She is the democrat candidate for president and must be protected.

This is why we need more trained journalists. Reading comprehension rates have gone to crap in this country.

Your post — while full of fear mongering for what you perceive as a biased media — has nothing to do with what was said in my post. Or the OP.

I should know better than to respond, but I'll point out all those numbers are self reported. As a journalist, I spend a lot of time with polls (you're welcome for that giggle). Over the last 20-25 years they've become increasingly unreliable. Why? Caller ID is the biggest reason. There's also the fact workers are busier now than they were 20-30 years ago and don't have time to talk to some pollster with a clipboard. There are also a few others beliefs in the industry why they're starting to fail, but those seem to be the big two.

So jumping up and down over self-reported numbers is like believing someone when they tell you how many sexual partners they've had or a drunk guy tells you how many beers he's had. It's completely unreliable.

Try the book below. Or at least the synopsis. Or — at the very least — don't believe everything you read on the internet.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739164740?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-style-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0739164740