As expected, my proposal to offer certification of TV health reporters has received strong and mixed reactions.
Some journalists feel it is a "bad idea...dangerous....the last thing journalism needs is licensing, even by its own members, because 1) the next step is the government doing it and 2) there is a free market that is supposed to take care of bad quality in anything."
Others think it is "a very good idea....shouldn't be reserved only for broadcast reporters, however...terrific piece."
Still another line of thought: "...maybe instead what's needed is a certification for TV news operations that would address the shortcomings you've identified. You can be the best TV health journalist in the world but if your news director won't give you the time or resources to do serious health reporting in a serious way, it's not going to happen. Plus certification for the whole news operation would give stations an incentive to ensure that their medical reporters get needed training, which would address some of the reporter-specific concerns you have."
Mission accomplished: a healthy debate is underway. Stay tuned.
I've worked at TV stations, cable networks, and syndicated shows.
There are so many people on the "assembly line," that the certification of only one component will be useless. Everyone down the line will have a chance to modify the story, regardless of how good/truthful/sound it is.
A change in the mindset is required.
Very few people I work, and have worked, with feel that their primary responsibility is to give the viewer accurate and useful information.
Posted by: What's Next In Health at July 5, 2005 01:15 AM