Those “reasonable restrictions” they’re always going on about
State Senator Bruce Patterson has an idea to help people sort out the media. He wants to create a state board to license and regulate reporters. Michigan Radio Jack Lessenberry has been thinking about that.
State Senator Bruce Patterson got to thinking about the media recently, and noticed something. Hairdressers and auto mechanics are regulated and licensed by the state.
So are lawyers, doctors, even those who give manicures. So, he reasoned, why shouldn’t reporters be as well?
Little creepy but gets creepier:
His bill would set up a board to review applications and license reporters. Candidates would have to demonstrate that they have a journalism degree, or, failing that, three years of experience, some published stories, and letters of recommendation.
Those who qualify would have to pay a license fee, and would be entitled to call themselves a “Michigan Registered Reporter.” Senator Patterson isn’t suggesting that those who don’t register be prevented from writing or broadcasting anything.
He just thinks it would help the public distinguish who was a reputable reporter, and who wasn’t.
You think a license = reputable?
May 28th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
These clowns just keep getting scarier and scarier.
May 28th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
WEll, no, but we all think concealed permit holders are good guys, so there is that conception!
May 28th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Its the same approach many states take with the 2nd amendment
May 28th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
One of the first steps dictatorial regimes take is control of the media and press….
May 28th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Of course he’s a Republican which you “forgot’ to mention.
May 28th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I can’t tell if its for real or tongue-in-cheek picking at the state licensing requirements for everything else…
Pol
May 28th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
I think it’s very subtle satire.
We all know, or should, that state licensing schemes are all designed to limit competition. They have nothing to do with quality.
May 28th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Darwin – what does it matter if he is a Republican? All politicians are scum.
May 28th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
So perfect….for years the media has screamed about registering and permitting all firearms owners. How’s it feel douche bags, think “it could never happen in America” anymore.
May 28th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Satire along the lines of Tom Coburn wanting a bill to ban tobacco.
But given that the 2A parallel is too sweet, I’m all for it.
May 28th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
It would help if they established an ethics oversight panel that actually held sway over complaints and license retention. But overall it the whole concept is pretty bizarre. And no doubt politics would NEVER have creep into the accreditation process.
@Darwin
What difference does it make if he’s a Repuglican? A stupid idea is stupid. Would it make any difference if he was of the Labor party or the Communist party. Not to mention, why would SU mention it? He rarely parses party affiliation.
May 28th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
So what about recipricy?
Are they going to control CNN or Dateline broadcasts in their state?
Are they going to require reporters from outside of their little shithole to get out of state licenses?
How in the world do you get 3 years of experience to get the license if you don’t have a license to get the experience?
What is the minimum size of the audience to require a license?
What is this shit? (rhetorical, it’s statists getting their control on ofcoarse.)
May 28th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Make the license mandatory to practice any journalism anywhere in the state. Make it discretionary, and be sure to tack on arbitrary restrictions, which if violated will result in loss of the license. Charge a fee. Require a three-page application be filled out. When they show up in the office to ask for the application, tell them they have to go home and download it off the Internet, then fill it out and bring it back. Require them to have the license on them at all times when practicing journalism or they lose the license. Make it a felony to practice journalism without a license.
That’s what a pistol license is like in NYS. Journalists who have no problem with “gun control” shouldn’t have a problem with “journalism control”, unless they’re the despicable, hypocritical, juvenile sons of Satan that they in fact are. When Kipling said, “half devil and half child” he might as well have been talking about MSM journalists.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
How about any felony conviction, or a misdemeanor such as DUI, domestic violence, check bouncing, or falsehood in a previous story, by a licensed reporter, loses that person the right to write for public consumption, speak publicly, or otherwise broadcast anything for the rest of their lives?
May 28th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Would they have to pass a practical test for accuracy? The government shouldn’t give anyone a license to shoot off their mouth unless they have demonstrated that they can do so accurately.
May 28th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Chas has the right idea. We should also demand that, for the public good, that these licenses are made public and published in regular media formats (such as the Commercial Appeal).
May 28th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
How about a license to run for office? One that requires 100% accuracy on a written test of the US Constitution (I’d be happy to write it for them).
Combine that with a general intelligence test, review of educational transcripts, credit and background investigation, letters of reference from non-family members who ‘are of good character’ who have known the applicant for three or more years, and of course, have an articulable need to be elected.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
I would just introduce a bill that is a carbon copy of the concealed handgun license bill but change everything to “journalist” instead of “gun owner.”
Do you think the media would get it? Probably not.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“You think a license = reputable?” Sure. Dan Rather would get a license, while Ann Coulter would not. Let reputable = leftist agitator. There. It all works now. Lets not get all excited. This has happened before. They called it the Fairness Doctrine. Just slap a new name, and some fresh makeup on that old whore and it’s all good. The forefathers didn’t envision television or the internet after all. They should absolutely do this. Having been written by dead, white slave owning smugglers, the constitution doesn’t mean anything anyway. Why play pat-a-cake? The Dems can have their police state, and the Republicans will go along to get along. Everyone’s happy.
May 28th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Would that mean you have to get a learner’s permit to be a blogger?
May 28th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
1. The Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.
2. First Amendment.
3. Fourteenth Amendment.
4. End of discussion. Unconstitutional on its face.
Of course, you can make the same case for 2A, but the judges won’t necessarily agree. They will on this one.
May 29th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Statism: It’s all fun and games until they come for *your* sacred cow, and then it’s a party!
May 29th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Fight to ram draconian restrictions down their journalista throats and then let them make our arguments for freedom for us. Let them highlight the ludicrousness of their own hypocrisy by arguing for freedom and gun control at the same time. Then let the public laugh at them for contradicting themselves.
May 29th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Require this license for bloggers as well, with fees of $200 a yr + $100/yr renewal fee.
Oh wait, that’s just Michigan Medical Marijuana … nevermind.
May 30th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Follow the decline of liberty in the US, and you’ll find the word “reasonable” at every turn…