Journalist protection bill....discussion: Who/What is a journalist

[kevinsmith]

BMTH posted this a bit ago on his book of faces or whatever you kids call it:

WASHINGTON — Journalists and bloggers who report news to the public will be protected from being forced to testify about their work under a media shield bill passed by a Senate committee Thursday.

But the new legal protections will not extend to the controversial online website Wikileaks and others whose principal work involves disclosing "primary-source documents … without authorization."

Senate sponsors of the bill and a coalition of media groups that support it hailed Thursday's bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee vote as a breakthrough.

"We're closer than we've ever been before to passing a strong and tough media shield bill," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "Thanks to important bipartisan compromises, we've put together a strong bill that balances the need for national security with that of a free press."

The final hurdle for the Judiciary Committee was defining who is a journalist in the digital era.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to "real reporters" and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

"I can't support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I'm not going to go there," she said.

Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information." The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any "legitimate news-gathering activities."

But the bill also makes it clear that the legal protection is not absolute. Federal officials still may "compel disclosure" from a journalist who has information that could stop or prevent crimes such as murder, kidnapping or child abduction or prevent "acts of terrorism" or significant harm to national security.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 13-5 vote and sent it to the Senate floor. Its sponsors are optimistic it will win passage there, but its fate remains in doubt in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says the bill, if enacted into law, "goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources.... While is it not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been."

While nearly every state has a media shield law, past efforts to pass a federal shield law have floundered, usually due to concerns over leaks of national security secrets.

The bill got a boost in recent months from an odd confluence of events. An aggressive effort launched by the Obama administration to plug national security leaks appeared to backfire. The administration was sharply criticized for bringing an espionage charge against Snowden, a contract worker for the National Security Agency who exposed the surveillance of Americans' phone records and emails, and for secretly obtaining phone records from reporters for the Associated Press and Fox News.

When these incidents came to light, President Obama told the Justice Department to develop new guidelines to protect journalists, and he pledged strong support for the media shield bill that was pending in the Senate.

During Thursday's committee debate, the senators sounded divided over how to view leaks like Snowden's. While Feinstein condemned those who revealed classified information, committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the public had learned valuable information about how the spy agency was operating.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, one of five Republicans who opposed the bill, said Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. had overstepped his authority. "This bill was called for because of abuses by the Justice Department," he said.

The current administration has "been the most abusive to the press in modern times," Cornyn said, "but a new law is not what we need."

Schumer, however, noted that putting the guidelines into law would prevent the Obama administration and future administrations from overstepping their authority.

[email protected]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77386691/


Now, I agree that journalists shouldn't be targeted for doing their job, which is keeping our government accountable.

I also find it scary to think that the government gets to choose who is protected from the government.

But at the same time, I can't help but feel that just because you have an iPhone and a Tumblr, that doesn't mean you get to identify yourself as a "journalist". A kid with a blogger account is not someone who has the training and experience to know what the story is, tell it effectively and accurately. Now, Lord knows a lot of journalists don't anymore either. The amount of professionalism as decreased proportinately to the amount of "news" outlets in existence. But still, just because you can type and know how to do a wordpress site.

It's an interesting conundrum...it has become more evident than ever that our government flouts the very rules protecting our liberties the whole system was created to defend. I don't know what the solution is....just let any asshole say they're a journalist to prevent legitimate news sources from being punished for serving as the fourth estate? Let the government define who a journalist is? What's the balance?

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

Anyone can be a journalist. It's not some exclusive club. It's up to the audience to buy into the journalist or not. The government has no business deciding who or what is a journalist.


This bill would not even be necessary if they'd just follow the first amendment and stop looking for ways to circumvent it with spying they justify with loose readings of the constitution and vague references to national security threats. Congress is just looking for more justifications to spy on journalists like they did with the AP. read the exceptions in this legislation carefully; they use the same buzz words they always use to justify circumventing the constitution

 

[kevinsmith]

True on the first amendment.

But for just public consumption, I have to go with the probably unpopular opinion that no, not everyone is a journalist. There are (supposed to be) ethics to reporting, a set of standards to which a true journalist should adhere.

That doesn't mean everyone can't have their say. By all means, have their blogs, their photo sharing and what not. I think that's great and incredibly valuable in this day and age. But that doesn't make someone a journalist anymore than someone having a sports car makes them a race car driver. Improper handling of both can cause some serious damage. One may not be physical, but it can still be damaging if we were to lend the same credibility to Bob's Blog that we do the New York Times.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

Yes, a journalist is supposed to have those qualities. But my point is there shouldn't be some certification process to prove you have those qualities. Let the general public decide if you have the qualities of a journalist. Yes, people are stupid, but congress is stupid, dangerous and they have evil agendas.

 

[kevinsmith]

Admittedly, my thoughts on the issue kinda strayed from the debate at hand in terms of the government's attempt to cover them under law in to the larger, more nebulous realm of defining a journalist for the sake of having a definition so unemployed, self-righteous fucktards with a DSLR and a Tumblr don't think they're on the same level of credibility and professionalism as someone who has busted their ass in the field and finally got a position with the LA Times.

Each has a purpose, each has a voice and should have a voice. But I also know which one carries more weight.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

Your last sentence is important. I think most people who follow current events closely would say the same. Individuals who care enough to read/view various sources are probably smart enough to judge the merits of those news sources.

The downsides of that far outweigh the positives of government defined journalism, IMO

 

[kevinsmith]

Leave the government part out for a second, like I said before.

Basically I just want to complain about self-important twats. lol

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

Well I get pretty tired of journalists from big mainstream outlets as well. I attended an event recently with reporters and photogs from the ap and Washington Post. They kept asking the same questions to try and 'get' the guy. I've seen this countless times.

I think the independent journalists are doing important work, and they often think differently than the ones who have to advance the brand of journalism that's about gotchas and controversial quotes

 

[kevinsmith]

Well I get pretty tired of journalists from big mainstream outlets as well. I attended an event recently with reporters and photogs from the ap and Washington Post. They kept asking the same questions to try and 'get' the guy. I've seen this countless times.

I think the independent journalists are doing important work, and they often think differently than the ones who have to advance the brand of journalism that's about gotchas and controversial quotes

As someone who has been a PR rep for 10 or so years, that's pretty standard. I've dealt with reporters from all levels who will do that, keep asking the question in a slightly different way hoping to get the soundbye/quotation they want. When I don't give it to them, they generally find some toothless yocal or some other idiot to give them the sensation quote they want. Those are shit reporters, the have a plan for the story before it's even started instead of reporting what's actually there.

 

[chalupa]

As someone who has been a PR rep for 10 or so years, that's pretty standard. I've dealt with reporters from all levels who will do that, keep asking the question in a slightly different way hoping to get the soundbye/quotation they want. When I don't give it to them, they generally find some toothless yocal or some other idiot to give them the sensation quote they want. Those are shit reporters, the have a plan for the story before it's even started instead of reporting what's actually there.

Lolyeah. I know exactly what you mean, like when I'm at a dinner with my wife that people got for me on a gift certificate at a 5 star restaurant, and the waiter is very attentive to our needs and the dinner is fantastic.

 

[Nocturnal]

True on the first amendment.

But for just public consumption, I have to go with the probably unpopular opinion that no, not everyone is a journalist. There are (supposed to be) ethics to reporting, a set of standards to which a true journalist should adhere.

That doesn't mean everyone can't have their say. By all means, have their blogs, their photo sharing and what not. I think that's great and incredibly valuable in this day and age. But that doesn't make someone a journalist anymore than someone having a sports car makes them a race car driver. Improper handling of both can cause some serious damage. One may not be physical, but it can still be damaging if we were to lend the same credibility to Bob's Blog that we do the New York Times.

The problem I see with that is that if there are only state sanctioned "official" journalists then it becomes much easier for the government to police the media. It is super simple for the WH to lean on the New York Times and threaten them to keep a story quiet but keeping out dozens of smaller outfits may be impossible.

What is a journalist? Somebody that reports news. If tomorrow I wanted to start printing a paper from my garage I don't see how the government can say "oh, you aren't a real newspaper, come back when you are owned by a huge corporation".

I guess in this day and age I don't see any positives from constraining news coverage, but a lot of negatives. Will the release of the next "Abu Garahib" pictures risk American lives? Yeah probably, but maybe that isn't the journalist's fault. Maybe it's the fault of the assholes did it or allowed it to happen.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

fucking lmao.. classic chalupa

As someone who has been a PR rep for 10 or so years, that's pretty standard. I've dealt with reporters from all levels who will do that, keep asking the question in a slightly different way hoping to get the soundbye/quotation they want. When I don't give it to them, they generally find some toothless yocal or some other idiot to give them the sensation quote they want. Those are shit reporters, the have a plan for the story before it's even started instead of reporting what's actually there.

Yeah I know it's standard practice. That's part of why I don't want them given preferential treatment over non traditional journalists

 

[kevinsmith]

Yeah I know it's standard practice. That's part of why I don't want them given preferential treatment over non traditional journalists

True.

Now I know my situation is a bit different, but I do give preferential treatment depending on the outlet for which someone is working. Which one do you think I'm going to spend more time and effort on, a blogger who writes for Examiner, or a travel writer who is doing a piece for a major newspaper? Which one has more legitimacy, readership and hence, benefit for me and my destination?

I know this isn't in the spirit of the main article, but it's where my thought process comes from. I get a lot of requests from people who think I should comp the ever loving shit out of hotel rooms, meals etc. because they're a "travel blogger" when in all reality they're looking for a free vacation. Tends to sour me a touch.

The problem I see with that is that if there are only state sanctioned "official" journalists then it becomes much easier for the government to police the media. It is super simple for the WH to lean on the New York Times and threaten them to keep a story quiet but keeping out dozens of smaller outfits may be impossible.

What is a journalist? Somebody that reports news. If tomorrow I wanted to start printing a paper from my garage I don't see how the government can say "oh, you aren't a real newspaper, come back when you are owned by a huge corporation".

I guess in this day and age I don't see any positives from constraining news coverage, but a lot of negatives. Will the release of the next "Abu Garahib" pictures risk American lives? Yeah probably, but maybe that isn't the journalist's fault. Maybe it's the fault of the assholes did it or allowed it to happen.

I don't think there should be "state sanctioned" journalists. But at the same time, do you think "Bob's Whitehouse Blog" should be allowed in to the daily briefings given by Jay Carney and is spin-city bullshit? Should anyone with an iPhone and a blogger account be allowed past crime scene tape to do a story about a crime? There are two sides to the coin that have to be pragmatically addressed.

 

[chalupa]

I should comp ...meals

The ironing is delicious.


I get what you're saying, though. Just like everything else in life, if we actually use a little common sense and are reasonable, the idiots on the fringes will get weeded out.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

Basically what chalupa said. Let people act as journalists, but the "source" (white house or you, Kevin) can still tell them to fuck off. Nobody is obligated to speak to the press

 

[Nocturnal]

True.

Now I know my situation is a bit different, but I do give preferential treatment depending on the outlet for which someone is working. Which one do you think I'm going to spend more time and effort on, a blogger who writes for Examiner, or a travel writer who is doing a piece for a major newspaper? Which one has more legitimacy, readership and hence, benefit for me and my destination?

I know this isn't in the spirit of the main article, but it's where my thought process comes from. I get a lot of requests from people who think I should comp the ever loving shit out of hotel rooms, meals etc. because they're a "travel blogger" when in all reality they're looking for a free vacation. Tends to sour me a touch.



I don't think there should be "state sanctioned" journalists. But at the same time, do you think "Bob's Whitehouse Blog" should be allowed in to the daily briefings given by Jay Carney and is spin-city bullshit? Should anyone with an iPhone and a blogger account be allowed past crime scene tape to do a story about a crime? There are two sides to the coin that have to be pragmatically addressed.

Access is one thing as there is only so much space/time available for high level people. For the second I don't think anyone get's behind the tape access but anyone should be able to write the story.

 

[Hambone]

This whole discussion only tells me what I already know to be true....barbarism is the soundest form of government