Ask HN: Why certify pilots but not journalists in their area of coverage? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why certify pilots but not journalists in their area of coverage?

1 pointamichail14 comments

Just as pilot certification is critical for public safety, one could argue that journalists should also be certified in their area of coverage.

For example, uncertified journalists could mislead the public on various technologies resulting in the failure of startups that should really have succeeded for the better public good.

To preserve freedom of speech, one might simply have journalists certified in the area on which they have written an article indicate this so that their article is taken more seriously.

View on HN

This stands as much chance of happening as licensing or certifying software developers.

And news agencies have long since stopped caring about "the better public good" and caring only about quarterly numbers of their stock prices. Even if there was some sort of "certified" journalist, an uncertified editor could easily truncate or otherwise alter an article into unintelligibility.

Furthermore, this won't stop news agencies from suppressing news. For example, The State had copies of Sanford's emails to his mistress for 6 months, and chose to neither publish them, nor question the governor. As another example, newspapers such as NY Times and Washington Post chose to conceal the warrantless wiretappings for more than a year. If they had released the news when they got it, in Oct 2004, there would never have been a 2nd term for bush. Likewise, the news media in the US chose to conceal the Abu Ghirab torture abuses for more than a year. What are they hiding now? How would "certifying" or "licensing" them force them into revealing news that they don't want to publish?

Freedom of Press is guaranteed in the constitution. Freedom to be a Pilot is not. Countries that seriously consider journalism a potential threat DO place severe limitations on who can publish things.

Also, if a journalist screws up, they lose credibility. If a pilot screws up, there's no second chance for anybody on board, or anybody who owned the damaged property.

You can still have freedom of the press, but additionally have journalists who are certified in a topic indicate this so that their articles on that topic are taken more seriously.

That's why it's illegal to represent yourself as a doctor when giving medical advice through a publication, unless you actually are a doctor. That's why the FDA has to approve medical advertisements. That's why people take CNN more seriously than they take the National Enquirer.

Because certification of journalists is contradictory to freedom of the press.

because pilots' actions lead directly to loss of life and property damage if they screw up?

The actions of journalists could also lead to loss of life and property damage.

For example, journalists may give credence to alternative medicine.

so, then, where do you draw the line between the responsibility of a professional and another's personal responsibility?

just because i suggest that you go jump off a bridge next month doesn't mean that its my fault for you doing so.

It depends on who you are. Are you a psychologist? A priest? A competitor?

Psychologists and priests do get certified to give people advice. If your competitor tells you to jump off the bridge and you do so, it's your own fault. If a tabloid runs a story and it's false, you shouldn't have fallen for it, anyway.

if a psychologist told me to jump off a bridge, i would not do it, nor would most people (despite the fact that they are indeed certified by a board)

it depends on a lot more than simply "who you are".

You're looking at this backwards. Current pilots love the certification process, it is a barrier to entry and a way to achieve seniority faster.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01... for the story about how the pilots union hated the retirement age limit until a bunch of younger pilots started joining the union. All of a sudden the upstarts had the majority vote and lo and behold, the age limits are imposed.

Certification of pilots is not imposed out of a desire to assure safety; it's because the lawmakers are lobbied by the pilots themselves.

Journalists would also love to be licensed, that way that upstart rapscallion Drudge and those dastardly blogs would stop eating into their business.

Ask Richard Jewell if misguided/malicious journalists matter.

i'm not saying that malicious journalists don't matter. i'm saying that it is substantively different. i'm also not saying that the certification process isn't something pilots like, i have pilots in the family.

journalists do have certifications and credentials that prove their worth. its a lack of care on the part of the industry and a lack of care in the consumer base that is causing a problem.

i want the best pilot to fly my plane, because if they mess up, i die. i have a lower barrier of entry for where my information comes from, because if they mess up, i might look dumb, might make a few mistakes but i'm almost definitely not going to die.

Motivations are unimportant as long as the result is desirable. Having a certification process that results in highly qualified pilots is a good thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com