Do Journalists Need Oversight?

The formation of a new ethics seal has some journalists objecting to the idea of oversight. The TAO of Journalism seal states that journalists bearing it's seal are to be "transparent about who [they] are, Accountable for [their] mistakes, and Open to other points of view." Deborah Potter wrote in her blog Do Journalists need a new ethics pledge? that transparency, accountability and openness "are among the core values of journalism."

But just how should journalists be made to adhere to these "core values"?
The TAO of Journalism seal is a "promise to your readers" intended to allow "legacy journalist[s]...citizen journalist[s]... independent blogger[s], or anyone else practicing journalism in the broadest sense of the word" to gain credibility and trust from readers. The idea is that while there is no overseeing council in charge of making sure journalists who bear the TAO of Journalism seal adhere to the guidelines of the seal, the public is to be in charge of making sure these journalists do not violate those guidelines.

The aspect that many journalists are struggling with is, why do we oversight? As the editor of the Puerto Rico Sun Communications, Clarisel Gonzolez commented on Potter's article, "They can keep their seal, I don't need a seal to confirm my principles." This new seal, along with other seals like it, cause readers to distrust reporters--in most cases without cause. While meant to give more credibility and trust to journalists, it causes readers to have an ever more cautious and critical eye on a journalist's work.

For some journalists, however, perhaps this ethic seal would do wonders in keeping them in line with Potter's "core values." In the case of Mike Wise of the Washington Post, perhaps bearing the TAO of Journalism seal would have discouraged him from "Tweeting" false news. Wise claimed he was trying to make a point about the declining standards of the media, but "He made that point in the worst way imaginable: by making up a phony 'scoop' and posting it on Twitter."

How do we as journalists, then, figure out when we need, if ever, to prove our credibility? Is it only necessary if doubt falls upon our readers? Or is it our obligation as media personnel to give our readers every opportunity to closely examine our product with the ability to publicly criticize, punish and demand the truth if they find our product to be untrustworthy and unreliable?

It is interesting, but also discouraging to think that journalists might need to be held accountable in order to prove that they are meeting standards and properly incorporating the core values of journalism into their work. What does this say about the current state of our craft?