Notes: get some anecdotes (pathos), CAP blog connection

People don’t necessarily know the SPJ

Too much power for the SPJ
What is the SPJ
One source of licensing, bias
What is the requirements for biasing
Who is licensing which people
Doctors can be tested to see if they have the knowledge to be licensed
Hungary russia ex:
Is it a solution for quality control
Introduction:
● Nick: Introduction 1:
● Overview of Topics, First Amendment, Online News, Independent Media
●
Argument 1(Constitution):
● Interview russell
● Russell quotes:
In terms of freedom of the press, right, it’s like a pretty vague clause of the
constitution. Certainly like other professions have been able to like license
themselves pretty effectively as a gatekeeping method
So then the question becomes do we want Journalism to be `1
Argument 2(Online News):
● Impracticality of it all
○ How do you regulate licensing
○ What's the criteria/ how do you get journalists
○ Impossible to stop people from publishing online
○ Waste of resources
○
● Twitter feeds and social media is how a lot of people get news
○ Would have to regulate what people are allowed to say on the internet
which violates freedom of speech and freedom of the press
○ Harms not only journalists, but the average citizen
● How do you license bloggers and student journalists
Argument 3(Importance of Independent Media):
● Citizen journalists and bloggers like MoCo Snow/MoCo Show--
 ● Student journalists
● Bloggers
● The spj can monopolize journalism
● Ex: russia and hungary
● 1984 examples
● Citizens might initially support to eliminate fake news, but you wouldn’t be
able to trust the news, not transparent
Conclusion:
●
Rebuttal:
POSSIBLE OPPOSITION:
Elimination of fake news
Shows the consumer what is a credible news source
Possible in other professions

First cross (2nd Debater)

First Constructed Speech

Introduce journalist licenses and the SPJ: Set up 3 arguments:

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson said that “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the
press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” This is what would happen
with the implementation of licensed journalism. Licensed Journalism would
introduce a system in which for anyone to practice journalism, they would have to
register with the Society of Professional Journalists SPJ, an organization which
claims to “promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed
citizenry”. Journalists would be subjecting themselves to possible biases, and
censorship, and losing their independence. First, while other professions have done
a good job licensing themselves, for journalists this is unconstitutional, as it
violates the first Amendment. Second, it’s also impossible, as social media and
obscure news sources across the internet account for much of the news intake
across the country. Finally, licensed journalism is detrimental for our country and
freedom, as independent media is one of the most important things in any
democratic nation.

Now, I’ll explain first argument, my partner will go more in depth on the other
two.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.” Sound Familiar? I hope so, otherwise I Commented [1]: i don't think you need this part of the
quote
worry for your NSL grade. Speaking of NSL, Ms. Russell agrees with us saying
that “legally the side is on unlicensed journalists in the current interpretation of the
first amendment” That was the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, which Commented [2]: shorten &work into other paragraph

states that any limitation on the press is illegal, therefore requiring journalists to be
licensed would clearly violate the First Amendment that is so important to our
Nation.

The SPJ understands this as well. On their website, they say that the organization's
purpose is to keep “and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech
and press through its advocacy efforts.” If the first amendment is so important to
the SPJ, journalists, and common citizens across the country, than placing
limitations on the news that people receive is unreasonable, counterproductive, and
makes no sense. Commented [3]: https://www.spj.org/aboutspj.asp
cite
Tt
Commented [4]: was this cited
People have tried to infringe upon our freedom of press before, and have been shut
down each time. The most significant challenges were the cases in New York
Times v. Sullivan (1964) and Garrison v. Louisiana (1964). Although these had to
do with libel laws, they clearly ground in the fact that limitations can not be placed
upon free journalism. New York Times v. Sullivan initially decided anything could
be printed unless there was “actual malice” which enacted Libel laws, claiming
print defamation and slander. Garrison v. Louisiana overturned and built upon New
York Times v. Sullivan, stating that no limits can be placed on journalism unless
there is a “reckless disregard for the truth.” This changed Libel Laws so that the
statement had to be untrue, no matter if it was malicious or not. If the SPJ were to
limit any press that wasn’t blatantly false, then it would violate the first
amendment and the interpretation under Garrison v. Louisiana.

Jim Lucas, lawmaker in Indiana, tried to require journalists be licensed. His

proposal was never put to vote, and the idea makes no sense in the first place. His
reasoning was that because we can limit the second amendment, why can’t we
limit the first. His proposal was never put to vote, as it makes no sense. There are
restrictions on the first amendment, including libel laws and wartime press. But
imagine if there were more limitations. Imagine if every year, we had to apply for a
new license to keep up our portfolios. And imagine if you were denied a license,
you would fail your classes, because CAP teachers don’t care! Student blogs,
newspapers, and organizations like BNC wouldn’t be allowed to fulfill their
purpose without a license.

As I have made clear, licensing is a clear and complete violation of the first
amendment, and would be something that no one wants, as shown through New
York Times v. Sullivan and Garrison v. Louisiana, as well as Indiana lawmaker,
Jim Lucas, whose proposal to license journalism was never even put to vote, and
the SPJ’s self proclaimed purpose, to protect first amendment rights. My partner
and I agree that the freedom of Press and speech are necessary to protect American
Democracy, and to do that we must uphold the supreme Law of the land, our
Constitution.
Notes

Opening
[argument 1, 2, 3 in one sentence each]
Go slow, give dramatic pauses
Find an anecdote
Use more pathos ^

Bring it back to the class-- how can we write in our class etc, student papers

Use more acting

Court case argument-- “we’ve hashed this out before”

Second Cross (1st Debator)

Second Constructed Speech

Restate 3 Arguments: There’s a multitude of reasons why licensing journalists isn’t
a viable option for the US, it’s unconstitutional, unreasonable, and undemocratic.
While licensing is viable for other professions, even necessary, it would be
impossible to regulate journalism. for example Doctors and lawyers have been able
to license themselves, but there are many factors that separate journalism from
professions that require licensing because there isn’t an objective standard to be
met before becoming a journalist. There are certainly rules within journalism that
are kept and should be kept, but these rules are already upheld in respectable
journalism. The Jayson Blairs are eliminated because journalism already polices
itself, without the introduction of unnecessary third party licensing that’s not
transparent.
As Nick said, requiring journalists to be licensed completely violates the
first amendment. The fact that it would be unconstitutional by itself is enough to
shoot down this idea in any court, but it’s only our first argument. Next I want to
argue that licensing is borderline impossible in part because of the increasing
presence of online journalism.
As our society becomes more dependent on internet and technology,
journalisms online presence has grown. According to a study by the PEW research
center, by August of 2017 over ⅔ of Americans got at least some of their news
online, and 2 in 10 Americans got the majority of their news online. This makes it
impossible to regulate because it’s impossible to stop or regulate people posting
what they want online. Many people also specifically get their news from social
media, Twitter feeds for example, which would be even harder to regulate.
According to a study from Statista there are currently over 300 million active
twitter users. I’m sure most of us have gotten news from various twitter feeds.
Another large online presence are bloggers, people who wouldn’t be able to post
without a license. This might not seem detrimental, but it would have an impact on
CAP students for example. We would need licenses, which we most likely couldn’t
get, to keep our portfolios going and legal. Students in general couldn’t practice
journalism. If you wanted to become a journalist you couldn’t just try writing for
your school paper, which is how many journalists get their start. Blair’s school
newspaper, Silver Chips, wouldn’t be possible. BNC wouldn’t be possible, we’d
never get to see Hunter talk about football. It would also silence so many voices,
take the March for Our Lives last year. That wouldn’t have been possible and the
students like us that walked out couldn’t have covered it. Likely, the only
journalists who could get licenses would be those working for prominent news
organizations the SPJ likes, or those who went to prominent journalism schools.
Many voices would be silenced. Licensing journalists also brings up a lot of
logistical questions that are hard to answer. When going into medicine or law it’s
easy to say that an individual has to know certain things to be qualified for that
profession, and those professions also have defined boundaries. This is different in
journalism. Licensing journalists brings up complicated questions like first of all
how do you define journalism. Where’s the cutoff? For example, Merriam-Webster
defines journalism as “the collection and editing of news for presentation through
the media”, but Ms. Lyons (who we all know is a journalist) says journalism is
“the spread of information by people whose motives are to inform”. All of this
would only lead to conflict and make it almost impossible to institute effective
licensing, regardless of whether or not it’s a good idea.
Moving on to our third contention, the fact that independent media is a
crucial part of any democracy, especially ours. Many might think that licensing
journalists is the cure to fake news sources, that it would ensure quality control in
journalism, but they’re wrong. *insert mic drop*
Requiring licensing would be the end of our independent media, it would
give the SPJ complete control over journalism, which realistically would only open
the profession up to complete corruption, manipulation, and monopolization. It
would eliminate the transparency in a profession tasked with telling the public the
truth.
As journalist Christiane Amanpour once said, “without the truth we seek,
there is no democracy, only dictatorship. Without the truth we bring there is no
rule of law, only anarchy and destruction”.

Good job bringing in the US-- emphasize the uniqueness

Sure we have licenses for docs, law, that makes sense. BUT journalists
 Journalism polices itself ← we blacklist the jayson blairs
As my partner ---> as katalin said
Give all the points youre about to make in ONE sentence
Pew research center attrivution-- dont use names

Ther are over 300 mil people on twitter, uncountabe numbers of bloggers

Think of how long it takes to get your DRIVERS license. Do you think the
journalism one will be any speedier than the DMV? News cant wait

March for our lives --- would be dead in the water,

Good argument about varying definitions

Strong ending-- rule of threes

First Rebuttal

Second Rebuttal

Licensing journalism simply doesn’t make sense for the country as it is.