GOP Lawmakers In Georgia Introduce Bill To Enforce ‘Journalism Ethics’ The lawmaker spearheading HB734, state Rep. Andy Welch (R), recently complained about an interview with a reporter that he felt was unfair. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/geor...ll-first-amendment_n_5ca4b8d3e4b094d3f5c4b92e A group of Republican state representatives in Georgia on Tuesday introduced legislation that would establish a “journalism ethics board” that would enforce “canons of ethics” for journalists and news organizations in the state, drawing concerns from First Amendment advocates. State Rep. Andy Welch (R), the lawmaker spearheading the HB734 bill, recently complained about an interview with a reporter that he felt was unfair, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The bill would set up a board, consisting of current journalists and a journalism professor, who would develop and enforce “canons of ethics for journalism which shall comport with industry standards regarding factual and ethical reporting.” The board would evaluate media-related complaints from Georgia residents and penalize journalists by stripping their accreditation or putting them on probation. Under the bill, any person interviewed by the media would have the right to request audio, video and/or photos of their interviews for free and could sue reporters and news organizations if they fail to provide them. “That is not to say the freedom to report is not there,” Welch told reporters about his legislation. “It’s just a question about what it means to be a part of the press, and whether or not there should be a set of canons of ethics that all members of the media within the state of Georgia would be willing to live by.” Richard T. Griffiths, president of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and a former vice president for CNN, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he initially “thought this was an April Fools joke.” “This is clearly an effort to rein in those who have been scrutinizing what’s been happening at the Legislature,” he said. “Frankly, this is the kind of proposal one would expect to surface in a banana republic, not the Peach State.” Jim Zachary, vice president of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and the editor of the Valdosta Daily Times, condemned the bill as “un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional.” “The media is often the only public watchdog to hold government in check and has a long tradition as the Fourth Estate, holding our governors accountable,” he wrote in a column Tuesday. “Welch wants to reverse that role and have the government hold the media in check, especially when he does not like the reporting. This myopic piece of legislation appears to be personal with Welch and an overreaction to reporting that he did not like. The next time he gets bad service in a restaurant is he going to introduce a bill to regulate servers in Georgia?” Tuesday was the final day of Georgia’s 2019 legislative session, but lawmakers could still consider the bill in 2020.
I have significant problems with the Georgia government proposal to enforce "Journalism Ethics". It appears to completely infringe on having a free press. I certainly hope it does not pass. I can understand the dismay from legislators in Georgia on biased, non-factual, taken-out-of-context reporting that led to this proposal. Many states have the same issue. Based on what we have seen in North Carolina with the Legislators and the Raleigh N&O & WRAL -- -there needs to be a point where papers/media realize that their completed biased coverage actually leads to a significant reduction of their ability to properly cover state government events. Every Republican in our state refuses to grant any interview to sources that have demonstrated a complete bias over time in their reporting including misquoting the politicians and fabricating information. Keep in mind that North Carolina is the state about a decade ago where a legislator sued to get a tape recording from a reporter to prove that the quotes in their coverage were complete lies -- and sure enough the quotes in the newspaper article were complete lies once the tape was obtained. Of course it took over 18 months to get through the courts so by then it had already caused irreversible political damage and was effectively no longer pertinent news.
Georgia is becoming the peach republic? the bill sponsored by five republicans. It is not unusual for lawmakers to disagree with media coverage during legislative sessions. For instance, some Republican House members have expressed unhappiness this year with an investigation by The Atlanta Journal Constitution and Channel 2 Action News that revealed that House Speaker David Ralston, a lawyer, on numerous occasions used legislative privilege laws to delay court cases for his clients, sometimes for years. https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/justice-delayed/nJmIsk5XIHQ8LePmBRLPQI/
How about a scenario where a media outlet is paid an amount of money and indemnified against lawsuits initiates biased, misleading, and untruthful coverage for an entity for political gain against another entity? How does that represent the best interests of voters, especially considering the politician elected through this collusion is likely corrupt? It seems to me a free press definition that allows for media bias or worse means a less free society with rampent corruption. The integrity of our vote is an important enough issue to impose penalties commensurate with the seriousness of these crimes such as minimum jail terms for reporters and editors as well as corporate level sanctions. There is no practical way to undo elections and it is not unusal for a politician to take on debt to finance their campaign. Worse yet, it can take many years to undo legislative damage by the illegitimate politican. Maybe even permanent damage is possible if Constitutional rights are ultimately reduced. The media is powerful and it should be obvious to all that appropiate regulation is required. I wish Government intervention was not needed because of moral and coruption hazard issues, but there needs to be basic journalistic principles maintained at all times. Let’s call one of these principles “Journalistic Integrity”. Edit: Some definitions and the addressing of certain situations appear to be in order. Several issues we have seen are false accusers, the presenting of false evidence of serious crimes, and trial by press. Accusers of serious crimes should be thoroughly vetted before being given media access. Media presentation of evidence of a crime creates media legal liability in the event that evidence is inaccurate or false. The amount of legal liability should reflect the degree of negligence. Media opinion should be confined to a certain time and disclosed. In addition, all conflicts of interests should be disclosed as well, including advertisers and controlling entities. Also related to media opinion is trial by press for specific or non specific crimes that are represented as serious, such as the Russia Collusion Investigation. In these cases, the media should be held accountable through appropiate laws.
Sadly that is the nature of the press and they are not obligated to do the interviews. A better statement would be for all of them to protest against the media outlets and refuse all one on one interviews and only give statements which are out there and cannot be edited. When they give a statement before various media outlets, no one media outlet can control the quote or story. Best way to get their point across and punish the mdeia.