56 Professionalization
Journal of Mass Media EthicsVol. 1, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 1986), 56-60
Professionalization:Danger to Press Freedom
and PluralismBy John C. Merrill
Louisiana State University
Journalism is viewed here as being in danger of becoming a profession,thereby changing the field into a narrow, monolithic, self-centered fellowship oftrue believers devoid of outward-looking and service orientations.
Journalism has gone a long way to-ward becoming a profession. Manywill say it is already a profession. Pro-fession or not, it is highly institutional-ized, causing it to perform in increas-ingly predictable ways. Therefore,the stage is set for rather rapid profes-sionalization. Whereas in the pre-World War II days, journalism wasknown as a "craft" or a "trade"—orsimply not given a label at all—it isnow quite common to hear it referredto as a profession. And we hear of"professional" j ournalism programs(Which ones are not "professional"?) inour universities, "professional" stan-dards in our ethical codes, and "profes-sional" organizations, associations,and societies of journalists.
Recently, soon after I had given alecture in class presenting my casethat journalism was not a professionand should not be one, I had a visitorto my office. This young lady, a mem-ber of my class, actually wept on myfloor; she was distraught; she was dev-astated, she said; she wondered if sheshould not change her major. Why?Because, she sobbed, she got into jour-
nalism school because she thoughtjournalism was a profession. Shewanted it to be a profession, and I hadshattered her hopes and ruined herday. After she calmed down some-what, I tried (but I'm not sure I suc-ceeded) to convince her that journal-ism was still journalism even though Ididn't consider it a profession, that itwas a worthy vocation, and that, per-haps, her reason for choosing it wasnot the right reason. I'm not sure shegot the point. But she did leave calmerthan she arrived, this time smilingthrough her tears.
This concerned student is not alonein her desire for journalistic profes-sionalization. Many of her fellow stu-dents, as well as practicing journalistsand journalism educators, are aspiringto a "professional" status that they be-lieve will bring them greater prestige(and perhaps, money) and at the sametime improve the field's blackened im-age and give "professional" journalistsa new sense of direction and responsi-bility.
A kind of longing for peer approvaland direction seems to be propelling
MM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [M
r Tho
mas
Biv
ins]
at 0
8:53
11
Sept
embe
r 201
3
Spring/Summer 1986 57
journalists into the elite exclusivity ofprofessionalization, where they insome way will become "special" peoplewith special training and special cre-dentials. Non-professionals, undersuch a system, could not practice jour-nalism. This attitude toward journal-ism as a profession, in addition to be-ing contrary to the spirit of the FirstAmendment and American tradition,evidences a supreme arrogance. But,then, journalists are well known forarrogance, so perhaps we should notbe surprised at their agitation for pro-fessional status.
In spite of this tendency toward pro-fessionalization, there are, indeed,some voices (largely crying in thewilderness) that are not sympatheticto the idea of journalism as a profes-sion. Coming at this topic mainly fromhistorical-sociological and economic di-rections (as Doug Birkhead and ArtKaul do in this issue of the Journal ofMass Media Ethics), many criticspoint out weaknesses of journalisticprofessionalization. As far back as19741 devoted an entire chapter in TheImperative of Freedom to the dangersof professionalizing journalism. Fewtook my words very seriously then,and few take them seriously now. Andthere have been others, here andthere, who have opposed the trend to-ward professionalizing journalism.But the trend has continued unabated,and undoubtedly within the nextdecade or two journalism will haveachieved significant status as a trueprofession. All signs point to it.
Take ethical codes for example.Codes of ethics are proliferating inspite of caveats raised against them(Black & Barney, 1985; Merrill, 1982).Such warnings are all but drowned outby a swelling chorus of pro-coderhetoric calling for their institutionand enforcement. Codes need to be"tightened up" and "enforced" morestringently in line with intellectualconcepts of "accountability" (Wulfe-meyer, 1985; Christians, 1985).
Beyond the U.S. predilection forprofessionalizing and codes of ethics,
spokesmen are pushing for a global orinternational code of journalisticethics (Nordenstreng, 1984), and cer-tainly the idea of certification or licens-ing of journalists is gaining popularityin many parts of the world—and hasactually been instituted here andthere. Codes, of course, as I havemaintained for many years, are eitherso broadly fuzzy or so specificallypicayunish as to be virtually useless,even in a national context. Just thinkof the farcical nature of an interna-tional code of journalistic ethics—try-ing to be useful across cultures, na-tionalities, ideologies, and politico-economic media systems. Perhapssomeone one day will propose a "One-World Journalistic Profession" whereeligible journalists everywhere can ac-cept the same standards, have thesame certification, and be accountableto the same authority.
The rapid inroads of this profes-sional approach seem to be comingfrom two main directions: from a kindof collectivist liberal direction whichwould increase group or associationsanctions and would minimize individ-ualism, and from well-meaning conser-vative "free market" journalists whonaively think that professionalizationwill assure media responsibility andhelp close the credibility "gap." Imaintain that the only thing that willeffect these goals is an ethical renais-sance among individual journalistswho, without the superficial and au-thoritarian codes of ethics designed bysome committee, determine to act intheir daily work in responsible ways.
At any rate, professionalism isstalking the halls of journalismschools, newspapers, magazine, andradio and television stations. Andwith it comes an institutionalized men-tality that would restrict individualfreedom and journalistic diversity."De-press the eccentrics and heretics"will undoubtedly be the slogan of theGreat Journalistic Profession of theYear 2000. "Regulate the activities ofjournalists" will be a companion tenet."Press freedom" in 2000 A.D. may
MIV—
Dow
nloa
ded
by [M
r Tho
mas
Biv
ins]
at 0
8:53
11
Sept
embe
r 201
3
58 Frofessionalization
well mean the freedom to fulfill theexpectations of some professionalmonolithic elite. Media people mayvery well support such a view; for,after all, their image certainly needsdoctoring at present. They see salva-tion in professionalizing—salvationfrom public mistrust and salvationfrom outside or extra-press arbiters.
No doubt professionalism seemsmore acceptable to most Americanjournalists as an approbative ethicalsystem (Merrill, 1985) than would be agovernmental/legal system in whichmedia responsibility is defined by anagent outside the media. A profes-sionally constituted approbative ethi-cal system would surely be more com-patible with traditional journalisticvalues of the United States. Fewwould argue against this.
But professionalization is not theonly option. American journalism hasbeen getting along pretty well withoutbeing a profession. So, another optionis to keep what we have: an "open"craft where anyone can be a journalistand where ethical standards are basi-cally determined by the journaliststhemselves and by the editors, pub-lishers, and other media managers ona pluralistic basis. What I am saying isthis: What is wrong with our presentsystem of pluralistic ethics which iscompatible with, and is working alongside of, our system of pluralistic jour-nalism exemplified by the diversity ofour media and their messages?
For in spite of professionalization'sadvantage over governmental or judi-ciary control of journalistic activities,the concept of journalism as a profes-sion is still filled with many weak-nesses and even dangers. Not leastamong these are (1) the loss of individ-ual freedom, and (2) the constriction ofjournalistic pluralism or diversity.
Individualism in journalism willslowly disappear with professionaliza-tion. This is not because individualjournalists will have lost the ability tomake independent decisions but be-cause the pressures of the professionitself will force them to abdicate much
of their real autonomy to the Collec-tive Will of the Profession. KarlJaspers (1957, p. 54) speaks of thisdanger to the individual:He must work in an aggregate which,so far as he is concerned, exists in andby itself. Harnessed in an apparatusdirected by an alien will, he obedientlydoes the work that is assigned him. Ifany sort of decision is demanded ofhim, it is taken haphazardly withinthe limited province of his function,without his having to probe to the bot-tom of things.
As individualism declines in journal-ism—as surely it must with profes-sionalization—the collectivities thattake over will depreciate the person bycalling forth utilitarian arguments ofthe most good to the most people andpropound arguments that the individ-ual must sublimate self to society andsocial groups for the good of all. It issad that journalists cannot take seri-ously these words of Friedrich Niet-zsche (1966, p.45) in which he defineshuman nobility as "Never thinking ofdegrading our duties into duties foreverybody."
Listen to Lewis Lapham (1973), ofHarper's. He is writing of a kind ofdeep-rooted desire among press peo-ple to belong to a hierarchy; he alsoobserves in the press increasing talkabout "legitimate" journalists, imply-ing a willingness to accept some typeof licensing or certification so that,presumably, a bonafide journalist canbe identified. Lapham writes that themore the press becomes a professionthe more it will "discourage the mem-bership amateurs" and, as is true ofother professions, "will encourage thepromotion of people diligently second-rate."
Lapham is right. Professionalismwill restrict the ranks of journalism,eliminating the "non-professionals"from its practice. The press will thusappear more respectable and responsi-ble—at least from the perspective ofthe professional "insiders".
Journalism, through increased em-phasis on codes of conduct, press coun-
MIV—
Dow
nloa
ded
by [M
r Tho
mas
Biv
ins]
at 0
8:53
11
Sept
embe
r 201
3
Spring/Summer 1986 59
cils, peer pressure, entrance require-ments checked by standard examina-tions, and by more rigorous demandfor professional journalism education,can become a true profession. But it isnot quite there yet. However, sayingthat journalism can become a profes-sion is not the same as saying that itshould become one. I am contendingthat it should not become a profession.My main reason for this position can besummed up, I think, by William Bar-rett's (1962) succinct statement on theprofessions:The price one pays for having a profes-sion is a deformation professionelle,as the French put it—<x professionaldeformation. Doctors and engineerstend to see things from the viewpoint oftheir own specialty, and usually showa very marked blind spot to whateverfalls outside this particular province.
Not only will professionalizing jour-nalism lead to a "very marked blindspot" pertaining to what is outside theprofession, but it will have an impacton the individual freedom enjoyed by ajournalist operating within what hasbeen a "craft" or "trade" concept ofjournalism. The journalist, as a pro-fessional, would seek to—or have to—conform to professional expectations.The journalist would follow the profes-sion's code or be in trouble; journalistswill be "chilled" by the threat of expul-sion—what I call the process of "de-pressing"—by the elite of the profes-sion. Ayn Rand (1971) reflects theideas of Barrett above when shewrites about the dangers of profes-sionalism:If there is any one way to confess one'sown mediocrity, it is the willingness toplace one's work in the absolute powerof a group, particularly a group ofone's professional colleagues. Of anyform of tyranny, this is the worst; it isdirected against a single human at-tribute: the mind—and against a sin-gle enemy: the innovator. The inno-vator, by definition, is the man whochallenges the established practices ofhis profession. To grant a profes-sional monopoly to any group, is to
sacrifice human ability and abolishprogress.
I have consistently insisted thatjournalism is not a profession. Mostrecently (Dennis and Merrill, 1984) Itook this position in a debate with EvDennis in a book on media issues. Irv-ing Kristol (1975), among others, hasagreed with my position. He wroteseveral years ago that "Even to speakof the 'profession' of journalism todayis to indulge in flattering exaggera-tion." Journalism, he said, "has not, asyet, acquired the simplest signs of aprofession."
In addition to a loss of individualfreedom and diversity in journalism,another reason—and a very importantone—why journalism should not be aprofession has been put forward onseveral occasions by James Carey(1969), dean of the College of Commu-nications at the University of Illinois.It is that if journalism were a profes-sion its practitioners would increas-ingly turn inward on themselves,thinking more and more about theirown vested interests and mechanismsfor self-protection, and less and lessabout their responsibilities to their au-diences. Professions, believes Carey,and I totally agree, tend to becomeingrown and selfish with a kind of com-placent and arrogant spirit contagiousamong their members.
Journalism today, I maintain, is oneof the most open and diversified insti-tutions in the country—one that islargely dedicated to public service. Iwant it to stay that way. But there isthe danger that it will become a profes-sion, thereby changing into a narrow,monolithic, self-centered fellowship oftrue believers devoid of an outward-looking and service orientation. I amwell aware of all the critical (and un-critical) theorists, and other anti-capi-talist critics of the American press,who would take umbrage at my pre-ceding statement about the "open-ness" and "diversified" nature of theU.S. press. However, considering allcounterpart press systems in the restof the world, the American press is,
MIV
Dow
nloa
ded
by [M
r Tho
mas
Biv
ins]
at 0
8:53
11
Sept
embe
r 201
3
60 Professionalization
indeed, open and diversified.Everette Dennis (Dennis and Mer-
rill, 1984), of the Gannett Center forMedia Studies in New York, has takenthe position that journalism is alreadya profession in spite of what "sociologi-cal quibblers" might say. He goes on tosay that "journalism is a profession notbecause its practitioners say that theyare professionals, but because it morethan meets most of the criteria that,taken together, constitute a profes-sion."
And he adds, paraphrasing a well-known saying, that journalism lookslike a profession, sounds like a profes-sion, and feels like a profession. Iteven "smells like a profession," hesays.
I must not resist, in conclusion, theurge to respond to this last Dennisianpoint. Journalism is, indeed, begin-ning to smell like a profession, butfrom my position downwind I must saythat its increasing professional odordoes not make my day.
References
Barrett, William (1962). Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy.Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 4-5.
Black, Jay, & Barney, Ralph (1985, Fall/Winter). The Case Against Mass MediaCodes of Ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1, 27-36.
Carey, J. W. (1969). The Communications Revolution and the Professional Commu-nicator. The Sociological Review Monograph No. 13: Sociology of Mass MediaCommunicators, University of Keele, 23-38.
Christians, Clifford (1985, FallAVinter). Enforcing Media Codes. Journal of MassMedia Ethics, 1, 14-21.
Dennis, Everette, & Merrill, John C. (1984). Basic Issues in Mass Communica-tion: A Debate. New York: Macmillan, 149-60.
Jaspers, Karl (1957). Man in the Modern Age. Garden City, N.Y.: DoubledayAnchor Books.
Kristol, Irving (1975, January). Is the Press Misusing Its Growing Power? More,pp. 26-28.
Lapham, Lewis (1973, August). The Temptation of a Sacred Cow. Harper's, p. 52.Merrill, John C. (1974). The Imperative of Freedom: A Philosophy of Journalistic
Autonomy. New York: Hastings House.Merrill, John C. (1982, Winter). A Semantic Analysis of the SPJ/SDX Code of
Ethics. Mass Comm Review, pp. 12-15.Merrill, John C. (1985). Three Theories of Press Responsibility and the Advan-
tages of Pluralistic Individualism. Paper presented to the International Com-munications Association Annual Convention, Honolulu.
Nietzsche, Frederich (1966). Beyond Good and Evil. New York: Random HouseVintage Books.
Nordenstreng, Kaarle (1984). The Mass Media Declaration of UNESCO. NewYork: Ablex.
Rand, Ayn (1971). The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. New York:Signet Books, pp. 46-7.
Wulfemeyer, K. Tim (1985, Fall/Winter). Ethics in Sports Journalism: TighteningUp the Code. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1, pp. 57-67.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [M
r Tho
mas
Biv
ins]
at 0
8:53
11
Sept
embe
r 201
3
