Bloggers Not Eligible for Shield Law?

Drew writes "Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), a co-sponsor to the Free Flow of Information Act 2005, has said that he does not expect bloggers to receive the protections proposed by the shield law under consideration. From the article: 'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?' The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US, Lugar said. But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?"

Comments

Typical elected official

[vandon]

This really makes my head spin. It's his law and even he isn't sure how the definitions should work. You'd think a sponsor of the bill might have an opinion about something like that.

Re:Typical elected official

[lordkuri]

Why would he? It's not like he's actually even read the damn thing. It was most likely thrown together by a staffer, under the direction of some lobbyist group, and he's been told "support this, we donated".

That's just how things work these days... sad as that is.

Re:Typical elected official

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

Ok, but you think he'd at least be briefed on some of the aspects and likely implications of it -- if for no other reason than stay on message.

Guys like John McCain do a much better job of sounding informed.

I mean, talking points aren't just for spinning Dubya's policy and making wild accusations about the liberal left are they?

Re:Typical elected official

[lordkuri]

you'd think, wouldn't you?

lately, I've seen more "who gives a shit what the plebs think" mentality out of most politicians than you can shake a stick at. I'd almost be willing to wager that he just doesn't care...

on a side note, I like that the first post here is a direct copy and paste of the second post in the discussion on the actual article's site. That's class for ya right there...

Re:Typical elected official

[Irish_Samurai]

That's not what should make your head spin.

Let's say they do nail down a definition for Journalist that everyone can kinda agree on. And when I say that, I say it very skeptically because no one is going to agree on that. So a trite and vague definition will be used.

After this happens, you have to prove that you are allowed this "sheild" by registering as a journalist or obtaining a license. This WILL happen if for no other reason than to be able to collect revenue off of the process.

Now the politicians have a way to define who can and cannot inform the people on their behavior without being subject to jail time. I understand this is the underlying point of the discussion, but the central focus is being put on bloggers to screen the real problem.

Take it one step further into tinfoil hat land, and the government will be able to use this to not only classify who can and cannot use free speech freely, but who is allowed to report on whether or not that speech was really necessary. The implications get pretty nasty after that.

Re:Typical elected official

[Anonymous Coward]

If you guys didn't have the reading comprehension skills of chimpanzees then you would realize that he's trying to come up with a good definition of journalists, not unsure about what the bill says. In his opinion, bloggers shouldn't be considered journalists, but he expects there to be debate about that.

Re:Typical elected official

[SpaceLifeForm]

In other words, it is unconstitutional.

Re:Typical elected official

[Southpaw018]

This really makes my head spin. It's his law and even he isn't sure how the definitions should work. You'd think a sponsor of the bill might have an opinion about something like that.

Please mod parent Redundant until you can't mod it any more. This is a copy-paste from an Ars forumite.

Re:Typical elected official

[alan_dershowitz]

I'm not making the connection. Just because licensure might be required to be covered under a shield law doesn't mean that suddenly free speech rights are at risk. No one is talking about limiting free speech.

Technically NO ONE has the the "right" to keep confidential sources, it's just acknowledged as a good idea, and is afforded as a "privilege". The first amendment simply does not cover it. The only information the government does not have the power to extract from an individual via subpoena is anything that could be construed as self-incrimination under the 5th amendment. Confidential sources is not even close to meeting this definition, not the least of which is that the journalist is not on trial for anything.

Re:Typical elected official

[LurkerXXX]

Remember, just because it isn't enumerated in the constitution, that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

Re:Typical elected official

[alan_dershowitz]

That's true, however the government has an explicitly enumerated power to subpoena information.

Re:Typical elected official

[Irish_Samurai]

With licensure comes a defined criteria one must meet to be licensed. By its very definition, some people will fall outside that definition. Those people will not be protected. This is a possible first step to quashing free speech.

If it is clearly defined that you are not protected by the shield law, it is safe to assume that you could be arrested for distributing information without a license if you attempt to protect your source. If this is the case, how long until politicians change the definitions and requirements for licensure to begin omitting parties that they would like to silence? Or begin altering the definition of source?

Confidential sources is not even close to meeting this definition, not the least of which is that the journalist is not on trial for anything.

Yet, the journalist still becomes imprisioned, how nice. Your statements are true in that as it stands, all citizens can be arrested for not divulging sources requested by a subpoena. It is this very lack of definition that allows all of us to speak about unsavory events. Now if you change that dynamic by defining two distinct groups, one that is afforded that protection and one that is not, you create an "information class". This information class will be smaller than the existing "journalist" population, that you can be sure of. This in turn will limit the outlets that whistleblowers can go to.

How long till this legislature is used to define OpEd's based on some criteria? It in and of itself is not threatening free speech itself, but it is the key to opening that door.

Re:Typical elected official

[alan_dershowitz]

1. nondisclosure of sources is not freedom of expression, so the determination of who is covered and who is not is therefore not a first amendment issue.

2. Who has freedom of speech IS clearly defined: insofar as the government is explicitly prohibited from abridging free speech.

This information class will be smaller than the existing "journalist" population, that you can be sure of. This in turn will limit the outlets that whistleblowers can go to.

It has never been the case that whistleblowers have a "right" to be anonymous. This has been a commonly followed convention, because it serves the public good.

Yet, the journalist still becomes imprisioned, how nice.

Yes, for violating a subpoena. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean the government can't issue subpoenas. My claim was that the ONLY information the government cannot legally coerce is self-incriminating information. A journalist can still be charged with non-cooperation of subpoena, which has nothing to do freedom of speech. they can say whatever they want, but they may be required to name sources. This in no way whatsoever abridges an individual's right to express an opinion, report on events, or redress government. How? How does this possibly abridge this right?

If we agree on anything, it's that journalists being able to have anonymous sources helps society. But where we differ appears to be that you consider that a right that is granted by the first amendment, and I think it is no such right, but should be a privilege as granted by some criteria established by law.

The OP was stating that shield laws put first amendment rights at risk by establishing an arbitrary protected class for protecting anonymous sources. I claim this false because anonymity protection has nothing to do with free speech rights and because free speech rights are enjoyed by a VERY well defined group, everyone, no exceptions.

Re:Typical elected official

[Copperhead]

It sounds like a handgun license.

Re:Typical elected official

[Anonymous Coward]

And the citizens have an obligation to overthrow motherfuckers in the government. Scumbag lawyers like the real Alan Dershowitz should go down with them.

Re:Typical elected official

[benjamindees]

And where is that power explicitly enumerated?

Re:Typical elected official

[Robocoastie]

yes it is a free speech issue because freedom of the press and free speach are the same article. Irish Samurai makes very valid points. - Government at all times should be limited and watched like a hawk which was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Re:Typical elected official

[matt_tucents]

Realistically, there is an "assumption of privacy" regarding certain vital social functions. For example, doctors (the client-patient relationship), religions (think confessions), and defense attorneys. Nobody in the press should share in this benifit. For doing so, and drawing a line between "the press" and "common folk", creates a state-sponsored media outlet. This leads to such abuses as protection from classified materials felonies [law.cornell.edu]. It's not that bloggers are not exempt from the shield law provision, but that other forms of press are.

Re:Typical elected official

[Mistshadow2k4]

You're almost certainly right, but "these days"? Dude, that kind of thing has been going on for a long time. That's why marijuana is illegal; the dangerous drug angle is what was cooked up to justify that law. In the 50s, a bar owner filed a comlaint over a C&W song about a drunk driver killing a child because it was hurting his business (something you couldn't do nowawadays). I'm not making this crap up; hit a search engine with 'em. The US and any country where there are politicians is like this and always has been.

But does that mean they always have to get away with it? No. Lobbies could be formed to lobby against serving special interests & business using the same tactics, but so far, no one seems to care enough to do that.

Re:Typical elected official

[Irish_Samurai]

It has never been the case that whistleblowers have a "right" to be anonymous. This has been a commonly followed convention, because it serves the public good.

My choice of the word whistleblower was a poor choice as there are laws dealing with curcumstances that are called whistleblower laws. My choice of vocabulary might have lead to a misunderstanding.

What I was trying to say is people with information that could be regarded as important, yet incriminating, will end up thinking twice before going to a journalist with their story if that journalist does not have this license because they will not be protected as a source.

nondisclosure of sources is not freedom of expression, so the determination of who is covered and who is not is therefore not a first amendment issue.

Your right, it is not a first amendment issue, yet it is interwoven with the concept, leading me to my next point.

Who has freedom of speech IS clearly defined: insofar as the government is explicitly prohibited from abridging free speech.

Yes, and this freedom is protected by the freedom of the press. It is the press that reports on these violations to make them known to the populace at hand. If someones first amendment rights have been violated, and it is not reported, there is no leverage the plebs can use as influence in the court. Sure, you can still hire a lawyer and file a case, but an entity that has the power to truly quash your first amendment rights probably has the resources to drag the case out, and win with deeper pockets. If this same entity does not have to worry about its public image, due to no reporting, I am willing to venture they won't care.

This could also be used to attack those who do exercise their free speech. Let's say a person begins to speak out against entity X, where X is very influencial and deep pocketed. This person (citizen A) begins to reveal information that is factual about entity X's behavior. Reporter B, who is a licensed reporter, doesn't like what citizen A is saying. In an attempt to discredit him, reporter B begins making up horrible things that have occured in citizen A's past that can only be corroborated by "his source", which does not exist. If Reporter B is licensed, he is protected from having to reveal his source, which works out just fine because the source doesn't exist. Reporter B can now do this with impunity because he does not need to worry about jailtime. There is no punishment other than the possibility of being fired, which won't happen. If you think reporters don't make up stuff, look up Stephen Glass. Citizen A's following loss of credibility has now subverted his freedom of speech. Yes Citizen A was still able to talk, but now no one will listen. I do understand that the freedom of speech is not the right to an audience, but if it can be so easily undermined - it is a useless freedom. A freedom that is only given so the masses can believe they are free.

Once again I will state that this scenario has one foot firmly entrenched in tinfoil hat land. I will also agree that technically your point is correct, freedom of speech is not legally being affected here. My argument is it's social and political value can be seriously devalued and nullified by the possible misuse of this legislation.

If we agree on anything, it's that journalists being able to have anonymous sources helps society. But where we differ appears to be that you consider that a right that is granted by the first amendment, and I think it is no such right, but should be a privilege as granted by some criteria established by law.

I actually think we may agree on more than that, the one thing I do not agree with is defining who is and who isn't allowed to protect their sources. By creating a definition that is maintained by government we would be laying the groundwork for the government controlling the news. Is this directly preventing free speech, no it isn't in the legal sense, but I firmly believe that it is crippling to the social aspects of free speech that are supported by a free press, not a regulated press.

Re:Typical elected official

[Irish_Samurai]

Exactly! All or None, that's what I'm saying.

Re:Typical elected official

[alan_dershowitz]

And I was overly broad in my statement that the government can subpoena whatever information it wants. The courts and congress are limited by various law about what it can subpoena for, and of course someone can contest a subpoena. I am however, bothered by the potential for mischief in the case where anyone can keep sources from the government, though we both agree this is doable. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because at this point it goes into value judgements. There's no accounting for taste in this area.

Why Define?

[Allen Zadr]

As an answer (I know, I shouldn't try)...
Lets start with WikiPedia:

"A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people."

What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place? He's disseminating information about a current event.

Was Ben Franklin being a common ruffian when he wrote the famous Dogood letters?

What I'm suggesting is... maybe there shouldn't be a definition for Journalist beyond what is accepted in common use. I think it's dangerous to put an 'unreasonable cost of entry' into a field that is supposed to be about free information. I also hate to put 'Media Conglomerate' employees in a category beyond the rest of us.
...At least not without a way ANYONE can freely apply for the same benefits. Of course, the article explains this part of my the point better than I do.

Then again, I'm just one semi-anonymous geek among friends.

Re:Why Define?

[jafiwam]

Perhaps change the wording to protect those practicing journalism, rather than journalists.

That way, the event say... going public with evidence that the Secratary of State committed treason maybe... is reported in a blog is an ACT of journalism no matter who the person is.

So an ordinary person would get the protection if they were publishing stuff on a web site, but wouldn't if they were sharing information among friends at a party and a cop happened to hear it.

Otherwise, the definition of a journalist is going to be too hard to figure out, but the ACT of journalism is something that can be defined by a list and a discriptive paragraph for each item on the list.

Re:Why Define?

[Iriel]

If (and that's a big if) we want to put some sort of definition or door charge on the word 'journalist', I think the place we need to start is by putting us (bloggers) level with the Media Conglomerates. For all of us that spout nonsense, and obvious bias, it's just as 'factual' as the subtle biases that ripple through almost every major network.

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what WWW.Dictionary.Com says is the definition of a Journalist:

1) One whose occupation is journalism.
2) One who keeps a journal.

I belive a blog is a journal so a blogger is a journalist.

Re:Why Define?

[RobotRunAmok]

Lets start with WikiPedia:

Here's a tip: Anyone who is skeptical regarding whether a "blogger" is a journalist is NOT going to be swayed by a Wikipedia cite.

More than likely, it'll have just the opposite effect...

Re:Why Define?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Hmmm- a lot of small town "journalists" who work for small newspapers work only part time, a few hours a week. They have other full time jobs. I believe that the way to explain the shield law, is that it will protect corporate journalists. Even many small free alternative papers are owned by big corporations now....
If you are an independent journalist, i.e. blogger, you have no rights. If you want rights, go work for a big company like GE (NBC) etc.... This scares the shit out of me- abridging our freedom of speech scares the shit out of me, sorry for the language.

Re:Why Define?

[ilyaaohell]

Bloggers are the equivalent of editorial writers. They put a spotlight on a specific issue and add their own personal slant on it by writing opinions on it.

Conversely, journalists USUALLY strive to do nothing but present the facts of the specific issue they're covering, and hardly ever use words like "I" or "In my opinion" or "I think", something that bloggers ALWAYS do.

Some people would argue that newspaper editorial writers are journalists. I disagree, they are not. People like Bob Novak are not journalists, people like Bill O'Reilly are not journalists, people like Al Franken are not journalists. The same applies to DailyKos, Andrew Sullivan, et al.

Of course that's my opinion. As such, I just negated this post having any journalistic integrity.

Re:Why Define?

[Allen Zadr]

I agree, to a point.

If someone gives me a picture to post to my blog of this guy smoking something with a woman, "Post this, it's funny. But you didn't get it from me". It's a funny picture, so I post it as-a humor piece. Can't tell at first, but this guy turns out to be the Mayor of my city, who is otherwise unmarried, and the girl turns out to be a crack-whore.

Great. So, then - we come to find that the something is probably drugs and the Crack-Whore ended up dead, and heavily doped up on Meth. The police get involved and investigate. Next, they talk to me, "Where did you get the photo?"

See, what I posted turns out to be news-worthy, but I didn't post it in a journalistic way. However, at no point did I expect someone would ask me about this guy who gave me the photo, but didn't want a photo-credit.

So, I'm screwed - and this guy will probably get nabbed as an accessory to drug distribution. Is that right? I'm fairly sure that's the intended outcome.

But if I were employed by Knight-Ridder, then I don't have to say a word, and my buddy keeps sending me funny photos. Is that right? Is that the intended outcome?

Re:Why Define?

[Allen Zadr]

Thus written... Among friends

I'm writing to a Slashdot posting. Many slashdotters, maybe not you, but many of us use the "WikiPedia" and even use the "Journal" feature of SlashDot.

Re:Why Define?

[Allen Zadr]

Yet most "editors" require that their reporters divulge their sources to THEM, but also will protect the sources from outside peering eyes. I believe the intent is to cover editors from divulging this information as well.

Re:Why Define?

[Tim C]

What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place?

Same thing that means that I'm not a journalist just for telling my daughter not to cross the road because there's a car coming.

The Cambridge Dictionaries Online website defines journaism as "the work of collecting, writing and publishing news stories and articles in newspapers and magazines or broadcasting them on the radio and television".

Granted, it should be updated to reflect the rise of online reporting, but I don't think many people would seriously suggest that my telling you that definition counts as journalism, any more than your example qualifies your boss as a journalist.

Re:Why Define?

[sochdot]

Simple. Here you go: Journalist (n) - Any person who communicates in any way with other humans on any topic for any purpose.

Re:Why Define?

[SatanicPuppy]

They'd probably still throw you in jail, even if you worked for K/R...Not that K/R would have ever let you print the pic in the first place.

Re:Why Define?

[Irish_Samurai]

I know I am going to get railed for this.

In this land of spin and partisanship - I would dare to say that anyone who used superlatives is not a journalist. Because their use infers opinion and a perspective. And there is no such thing as a objective perspective.

The one case where this may not hold true is where numbers involved in the story are in fact the greatest or smallest recorded value of their respective measurement. I hope that made sense.

Re:Why Define?

[Allen Zadr]

That's the point. He's not. If journalist is set to any single definition, a slew of "technically correct" situations will arise, that are obviously not correct. Just as a whole group of those that should be protected a journalist, will not be.

I think it's better to simply not define, and let the courts deal with it, one cast at a time.

That's where a judgement call might be required.

Re:Why Define?

[Allen Zadr]

Right, I should have said Time Warner. Sorry about that.

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is she a crack-whore or a meth-whore?
I'm confused...

Re:Why Define?

[Greyfox]

That'd rule out pretty much the entire current generation of news people too, though. Journalists... bah! Journalists impartially report facts, not mindlessly repeat talking points from the left or right. Journalists report the news, they don't make it. Journalists poke their noses into places where they shouldn't be and shine the light of shame on people who abuse the public trust. Journalists make sure all sides of the story get told, especially the ones you didn't even know were there. Journalists have a sense of honor and will stand their ground and take on anyone who offends that sense of honor. Journalists distill the chaos of everything that is happening and tell you the things that you really need to know. Journalists know their actions have consequences and are willing to accept those consequences. There are no journalists anymore, and haven't been for almost as long as I've been alive.

Oh every once in a rare while you see someone who claims to be a journalist show a hint of backbone, a spark of journalistic integrity that shines briefly in the void we have today, but it never lasts for every long. Then we go back to the inane prattle that claims to be news these days. Is it any wonder that common citizens, most of whom never considered it as a profession, are now trying to step up to the plate? Nature abhors a vacuum, and the current news industry sucks more than any vacuum ever has.

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Disallowed freedom of the computer?

If the facts are true, not confidential, and the blogger is a citizen of the United States of America, what difference is there if or if not the individual is a journalist? Since when is it illegal for me (non-journalist) to declare "I had a crappy day today" on the internet?

Here's a blog entry for you: "Guess what laws have been pulled out of lawmaker's butts?"

Re:Why Define?

[Ryan Amos]

The second part of this comment is why bloggers are not considered the same as traditional news media.

Traditional news media at least attempts to make sure they got the story right. They do fact checking, carefully organize sources, etc. All that stuff you had to learn when writing research papers. I'm not talking TV news here, because we all know Fox News doesn't fact-check shit.

Most bloggers can't even get the details of an article they link to correct (case in point: Slashdot.) While the traditional media does screw up every once in a while, bloggers are epidemically lazy and excited about their new information, so they can turn around and tell other people.

If a blogger posts something very scandalous, but documents sources (even anonymous ones, the reporter should know who they are so the information can be verified) I'd be inclined to call it journalism and protect it. But a blogger posting an anecdotal account of someone famous doing something scandalous is not journalism, it's gossip.

Re:Why Define?

[sjames]

Coming at things from the other direction, a columnist is just a paper and ink blogger that got popular enough to be worth the printing costs.

There are plenty of reporters for small town newspapers (a very few are still reporter, editor, lead pressman and delivery boy all in one) that are generally agreed to be journalists (since they work for a newspaper). So, why not a blogger who actually has 10 times the readership but by virtue of reduced overhead never had to form a company?

In an era where editorial decisions are increasingly influenced by parent companies and big advertisers (and editors and reporters who won't stand for that having an increasing difficulty finding employment), we NEED that 0.1% of the blogs that are worth reading to maintain the integrity of the free press.

Re:Why Define?

[Maxo-Texas]

Yea. Rather certainly had Bush nailed with those national guard records.
You know- the ones where the bloggers were first to show they were probably fakes.
The ones where CBS ignored their own warnings and published anyway?

Come on-- admit you set yourself up for that.

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is she a crack-whore or a meth-whore?
I'm confused...

That's not the point. The point is, she's your mom.

Re:Why Define?

[westlake]

If someone gives me a picture to post to my blog of this guy smoking something with a woman, "Post this, it's funny. But you didn't get it from me". It's a funny picture, so I post it as-a humor piece.

This should set off alarms. You are publishing a photograph without the consent of the subjects and simply holding them up to ridicule. Libelous on its face. Whatever defense you had under a shield law has just gone up in smoke. Be thankful it's only the new Mayor you're about to piss off and not the Columbian drug lord in town on business.

Re:Why Define?

[NormalVisual]

Traditional news media at least attempts to make sure they got the story right. They do fact checking, carefully organize sources, etc. All that stuff you had to learn when writing research papers. I'm not talking TV news here, because we all know Fox News doesn't fact-check shit.

Perhaps the print journalists that have continued to publish sensationalist and blatantly incorrect information about Florida's recently enacted self-defense law didn't get that memo, nor did they apparently even read the law about which they continue to write about.

Saying "the traditional news media will do a better job of reporting" doesn't hold water for me in light of the stuff I read in the paper every day written by journalists who are either ignorant of the subject matter or have some kind of agenda. I don't necessarily fault them for that, and that's not to say that all professional journalists are like that, but the lofty and sacred standards by which they're taught to abide in college are at best taken to be mere guidelines in my experience.

Re:Why Define?

[notasheep]

It's funny how mis-information impacts the truth over time.

The only thing that was ever in dispute was whether or not the memo itself was legitimate, not whether the statements in the memo were accurate. No one has ever disputed the statements in the memo accurately depicted Bush's military record. They have, however, managed to distract lots of folks from the truth by focusing everyone's attention on the legitimacy of the source of the paper they were written on.

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are publishing a photograph without the consent of the subjects and simply holding them up to ridicule. Libelous on its face.

Are you a fucking moron? Do you even know what libel is? An unretouched photograph with no caption cannot, under any circumstances, be libelous. A photograph is a piece of factual information. You can certainly add a libelous caption or Photoshopping but simply posting a picture and saying "this is funny" cannot by any stretch of the imagination be "libelous".

Re:Why Define?

[geekoid]

"What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place? He's disseminating information about a current event."

he is creating news, not reporting it.

If I wrote in a blog/newspaper/evening news that he told you to do that, then it would be news reporting. i.e. Journalism.

Re:Why Define?

[SMS_Design]

Okay then.. lets move to Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: journalist
Function: noun

1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

2 : a person who keeps a journal

Re:Why Define?

[Maxo-Texas]

My god.

Are you so far gone that you want to believe that information on obviously FORGED documents is true?

Whatever his record was (and I suspect it wasn't good), nothing based on the documents should be considered period.

Re:Why Define?

[musakko]

2 : a person who keeps a journal

Perfect! So bloggers are 100% journalists under the second definition

Re:Why Define?

[zurab]

I believe that the way to explain the shield law, is that it will protect corporate journalists.

Because laws have to be specific in their definitions, I propose the following for the purposes of this bill:

Journalist - defined as a person working for a multi-national corporate conglomerate that is a part of the international media cartel which in turn makes huge corporate election contributions (read: bribes) to the two-party system puppets; and the reporting content from which can be centrally controlled by simply placing a single phone call to a handful of government buddy company CEOs.

Did I miss anything?

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets start with WikiPedia:

You've got to be kidding.

What I'm suggesting is... maybe there shouldn't be a definition for Journalist

Okay, then "WikiPedia" is probably a good place to start if you're not looking for a real definition.

Re:Why Define?

[smooth wombat]

Are you so far gone that you want to believe that information on obviously FORGED documents is true?

Considering the secretary who wrote such letters, as requested by the commanding officer, confirmed that the sentiment of what was written was correct even if the actual document produced was not real, then yes, I'll believe what comes from the horses mouth.

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the secretary who wrote such letters, as requested by the commanding officer, confirmed that the sentiment of what was written was correct

Sentiment, maybe, but not applied to Bush in particular:

"Knox said she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush and others."

link

Re:Why Define?

[hesiod]

> I don't necessarily fault them for that

What?!?! Why the heck not? Their job is to report news. Factually incorrect information is not news (unless that news is pointing out the incorrectness of something else). That means they are not doing their jobs. They are the only ones to blame for not doing their jobs, unless they were forced, somehow, to lie. Even then, it could be argued that they are still at fault for giving in to coercion. They should be held responsible for incorrect information, not just given a pass because their source was untrustworthy. If they relied on a bad source, it's their fault for doing so.

Re:Why Define?

[hesiod]

> So bloggers are 100% journalists under the second definition

Your powers of observation are the most remarkable I've seen for quite some time. You should think about joining the FBI. Thank you, Mr. Obvious!

Re:Why Define?

[DeputySpade]

Traditional news media at least attempts to make sure they got the story right. They do fact checking, carefully organize sources, etc. All that stuff you had to learn when writing research papers.

LOL! I call bullshit. Two words for you: Jayson Blair

Re:Why Define?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that argument is that one simply does not address accusations against oneself unless they come from legitimate sources. To do so actually adds legitmacy to the anonymous accuser. And we know that any sitting President (or other politician for that matter) would never get anything done if they had to go around answering every wingnut and anonymous coward.

Now, if you want those issues addressed, then use a legitimate source. You'll almost be guaranteed a response if you do. Otherwise, shaddup, 'cause you just end up looking like one more conspiracy loon.

Re:Why Define?

[will_die]

No one has ever disputed the statements in the memo accurately depicted Bush's military record.

The memo was a fake and everything in it was false, what is the use of disputing something that is so false?
If I write up an article saying that you are a pedofile and then in the same hand writing sign your name and that the above statement was correct would you spend time going around saying that the statement was false but you did write it or would you not just say this is a forged document explain why and move on?

Re:Why Define?

[mcubed]

That way, the event say... going public with evidence that the Secratary of State committed treason maybe... is reported in a blog is an ACT of journalism no matter who the person is.

The law being proposed here is, essentially, a reaction to what happened to NYT reporter Judith Miller, who was held in contempt of court when she refused to reveal her source for information about Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA operative. But Miller never wrote an article revealing that information. So, by your formulation, she never committed the "act of journalism" necessary to define her as a person "practicing journalism" with regard to this story, which would mean she wouldn't be covered by the shield law as you suggest it ought to be implemented. The only way she'd be covered is if you defined her as a "practicing journalist," and that takes us right back to the question of how you define who is or is not a journalist.

...Which leads me to the conclusion that this proposed law is wrong-headed in any formulation one could devise. I don't think anyone, be he a professional journalist employed by The New York Times with a graduate degree from Columbia University School of Journalism or Joe Blow with a LiveJournal blog, ought to be shielded from the consequences of refusing to provide information to the courts regarding the possible commission of a crime, even if those consequences include jail time. I applaud Ms. Miller for her actions ... under the circumstances, it seemed to me to be the right thing for her to do. One, she needs credibility with her sources in order for her to do her job. Any reporter who relies on confidential sources must demonstrate a willingness to keep those sources confidential when push comes to shove, as it did here. It's doubtful that Joe Blow Blogger necessarily would feel as compelled to maintain confidentiality, since Joe Blow Blogger probably isn't relying on his blog (or his reputation) for his livelihood. But that doesn't mean that Joe Professional Journalist deserves some special shielding that Joe Blow Blogger does not. The point is that a crime may have been committed here, and anyone who has information about that crime can be subpoenaed to testify in the investigation of that crime. Whether that person will testify or what he will or won't reveal in that testimony is entirely up to him. From the court's perspective, why should it matter whether the person subpoenaed is a journalist, a blogger, a person committing the "act of journalism," or anything else -- anything other than a person who has knowledged about the crime?

-- Michael

Does it really matter?

[lordkuri]

Does it really matter if they get the same "protections" as "real" journalists?

I've seen those disregarded quite a bit lately, so where's the benefit?

Re:Does it really matter?

[jeepmeister]

As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K) I can tell you that the shield law does matter. I'm far less concerned over bloggers not receiving equal protection under the shield law than I am that the effectiveness of the shield law may be diluted by the controversy over bloggers credentials as journalists. I'll feel that way until some as yet to be defined in my mind number of bloggers are willing to go to jail for the right to keep sources confidential. Sorry if this sounds hostile, but to a journalist the shield law is a significant issue.

Re:Does it really matter?

[lordkuri]

ok, and as a "former journalist" aren't you even the slightest bit concerned with the way they've been treated lately?

Law or no law, if you piss off the wrong people, you *will* suffer for it.

Remind me what country I'm living in again?

Re:Does it really matter?

[jeepmeister]

Of course, journalists constantly get the raw end of treatment from the government, and journalists are constantly testing the Constitutionality of their First Ammendment Rights, as well as their rights to protect the identity of their sources; a concept that is central to maintaining a free press. When sources are not assured *by law* that journalists won't be allowd to keep their sources confidential, they quit talking and as a result government becomes less accountable. That makes the assertion of journalists claims to source confidentiality under shield laws even *more* important, not less so.

Re:Does it really matter?

[lordkuri]

and when said laws are ignored, then what?

see: Geneva Convention, War Powers Act, etc

Re:Does it really matter?

[greg_barton]

As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K)

So, you as a journalist working at a publication with circulation of over 100K (in a single metropolitan area) would get protection, while a blogger writing on a site with 1000K page hits per day (from all around the nation/world) would get none?

That makes...uh...sense?

Re:Does it really matter?

[orac2]

As a current working journalist, I agree. What blog boosters tend to forget, in all the clamour about "grassroots journalism" vs. charges of professional or corporate elitism, is that the audience of blogs is very, very small. According to a recent Forrester survey, less than 2% of Americans who go online read blogs once a week or more, compared to the 65% who read their local paper. Most people -- especially those who don't have the money to pay the Internet toll, or the time to surf the blogosphere -- get their news from television, magazine and newspapers, and to a lesser extent, their online equivalents. Therefore, if you really believe in the press as a vital player for justice and democracy, securing shield law protection for journalists who work for these outlets -- which serve the majority of Americans, including those left out in the cold by the blogosphere -- is a higher priority than securing those protections for bloggers.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Craig Maloney]

So, what happens when the readership of blogs is 1/3 of newspapers? 1/2? Do they somehow get legitimized because of readership? How many news outlets now quote blogs as a new source? When is there a tipping point where an anonymous blogger gets the same protections as a journalist?

I don't have the answers, so I'm interested in your opinion on this.

Re:Does it really matter?

[HAMgeek]

In my opinion, many so-called journalists are no different than many bloggers. Way too much of what passes for journalism is really nothing more than personal opinion. If you report the facts of a story as in, "Joe and his friends went to the store and interrupted a robbery in progress. 3 people suffered gun-shot injuries. No one died." then you deserve protection. If on the other hand you spin your stories to suit some agenda like this, "Joe and his NRA buddies went out looking for trouble. They found some poor hyphenated Americans at the local quickie-mart trying to supplement their income and opened fire. This is a prime example of why all guns should be confiscated." then you deserve no more protection than any blogger.

Re:Does it really matter?

[orac2]

So, what happens when the readership of blogs is 1/3 of newspapers?

Then we'll talk. :) I don't think this'll happen for some time, if ever, so I may never have to answer the question! But I do think a truly broad readership would help legitimize blogs, given that the reason why the press has special protections in the first place is because of its unique role in a free society.

But even then there's the issue of originality: if a blog is just editorializing about content generated elsewhere or generating content which could not be considered to have any public interest (i.e. the trivia of your dog's toilet training doesn't cut it), I don't think the blogger deserves the same protections as a reporting journalist, since, after all, the blogger doesn't have any sources to protect in the first place!

All that said, I agree with an earlier poster who suggested the statute be worded broadly and it be left up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis if someone outside the traditional media structures qualifies as a journalist.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shamelessly copying Glenn Reynolds here:

ONE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE TITLED NOBILITY was its immunity from some legal rules laid on the commoners; that's why such titles were an important boon that the King could bestow on favorites. Reading this statement by Richard Lugar on the proposed journalists' shield law, which probably won't cover bloggers, I wonder if we're getting into the same territory:

In other remarks about the legislation at IAPA's 61st General Assembly, Lugar acknowledged that the legislation could amount to a "privilege" for reporters over other Americans.

"I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail."

I think that such special privileges are a bad idea, as I've said here before. But to the extent that they apply only to Registered Official Journalists (as the story suggests is the intent) rather than to the activity of reporting, I think that they're also deeply troubling. The government is bestowing a special privilege on the press. Will it, like the King, expect loyalty in return?

Re:Does it really matter?

[orac2]

I agree there's a lot of bad journalism out there, and, fundamentally I think you have a point with your distinction between editorializing and reporting. However, even in your example, apart from the last sentence, things are rarely black and white. What if, for example, in your reporting you discovered that the leadership of local NRA chapter were led by ex-members of the KKK who'd been inciting violence against minorities for years, and the poor hyphenated Americans were starving migrant workers whose boss just refused to pay them for a season's work? Then it would be perfectly appropriate for a bona-fide journalist to write the second version as part of a larger piece (again, sans the final sentence). All journalism has a viewpoint, even if its just deciding what's newsworthy (shooting at store) versus what isn't (area homless population remains at 500).

But I don't think bloggers make a strong case for themselves when they point out that the best blogs are better than the worst traditional media (online or off), because that's not exactly a high threshold.

Re:Does it really matter?

[bigpat]

As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K)

So, your criteria for "journalist" is being paid, printing on paper or some minimum readership? Or all three?

Re:Does it really matter?

[StikyPad]

What about a site like the Drudge Report, which has a readership in the millions? What's the litmus test for being a reporter? Training? Readership? Employment? Whether or not one's been to jail? Or sort of a four-cheese blend?

I'll feel that way until some as-yet to be defined in my mind number of bloggers are willing to go to jail for the right to keep sources confidential.

I guess I feel minorities should ride on the back of the bus until some as yet to be defined number of minorities are willing to go to jail for the right to get equal treatment. Or, we could just afford people the rights they're already guaranteed without requiring them to prove their merit in order to receive protection under the law.

Put another way, the framers put Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment, along with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Peacable assembly. These rights are granted to individuals, not government-approved entities. There is no test for the legitimacy of a religion in order to receive the same Constitutional protections for Jedism as Judaism. To create a test for whether a religion receives constitutional protection would be the same as requiring state approval for a religion, and would be in direct conflict with "Congress shall make no law..."

Now I'll be the first to admit that I think bloggers are a bunch of self-important hipsters who really don't have much of a contribution to make to the field of journalism on the whole, but I would also describe most reporters the same way.

Re:Does it really matter?

[ReverendLoki]

So when FoxNews decides to see what various blogs are saying today, and they put several of these blogs on the big screen behind the desk, does that count as their entire viewership reading the blog? Tell ya what, when the newspaper's readership reaches as high as 1/2 of some of these blogs...

Seriously, though, one thing to consider is that an average newspaper on even a slow newsday consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, columns and features. Would it be fairer to compare the readership of a blog with the readership of one professional journalist's articles? Or should we consider what the distribution of a paper would be if it consisted solely of one journalist's works? Hell, we all know many newspapers' subscriber base would plummet if they didn't carry daily comics.

There are quite a few online "news sites" that could end up in uncertain waters under this situation. Think Secret probably has a readership that greatly exceeds many newspapers, and we've certainly seen them in this situation before. Should the original articles on this site - such as book and game reviews - be granted any such shield? Maybe the game publisher disagrees with your statement that the plot for their latest game is poorly acted and an almost word-for-word reproduction of a two-bit action novel. That article you wrote had to pass before the eyes of an editor before reaching the front page, and the readership of this site is enough to kill many a newspaper's website; why shouldn't it earn protection as well?

Re:Does it really matter?

[orac2]

So when FoxNews decides to see what various blogs are saying today, and they put several of these blogs on the big screen behind the desk, does that count as their entire viewership reading the blog?

Nope, just as when, say Readers Digest or Utne Reader, reprint something, it doesn't count toward the circulation of the original publication.

There are quite a few online "news sites" that could end up in uncertain waters under this situation.

Sure, which is why I agree with the suggestion that the law be worded broadly enough so that the courts can decide on the journalistic credentials of someone outside traditional media structures on a case-by-case basis. My point is that traditional journalists (online and off) deserve higher priority for shield law consideration than bloggers, and that blogs as a general class, have not yet met (the admitedly ill-defined point) where they can be presumptively considered to be the products of journalists, or deserving of the special privileges that the US constitution extends to the press in exchange for its contribution to a free society.

Re:Does it really matter?

[hazem]

Why does it matter who's a "journalist" or not? The constitution guarantees freedom of the press, not journalists. This was a time when lots of people had presses and made lots of pamphlets. Should the consitution not be interpreted to mean that anyone who wishes to publish something is protected by the 1st Ammendment?

Do I have to be a journalist to have free-speech protections? And why should anyone who publishes be forced to reveal sources? I thought this was supposed to be a free country. Clearly, it's not.

Re:Does it really matter?

[alan_dershowitz]

Problems:

1. Nobility is hereditary, the condition of being a journalist is not.

2. Re: loyalty. King's rule is arbitrary and cannot be overruled, hence bad in this case. However, this bill is written by legislators which are appointed by representative government. The determination of who is covered and who is not is not out of our control.

3. By this definition, what's not a title? Are we saying that the state can't regulate who practices law or medicine? What about police officers carrying firearms in no-carry states? non-profit entities? Tax tiers? People are treated differently by all kinds of criteria.

Re:Does it really matter?

[commodoresloat]

This doesn't answer the question what is a "journalist" and what is a "blogger". There is no magic number of page views that makes a blog into a news source. Also, the Constitution does not seem to allow for different classes of free speech and press protection. You may feel that some people's rights are a higher priority than others to protect (and you may be right), BUT there is no Constitutionally appropriate manner to give such priority I don't think.

Re:Does it really matter?

[vanillaspice]

I am another journalist by trade, right now in between jobs. I've grown quite tired of the blogger issue because it really isn't one. Anyone can start a blog. Reporters must have the requisite training and skill. If Drudge got sued or imprisoned through some provision in the shield law, he could always start a new Web site or, hell, go back to his current one. Someone who's actually dealing with sensitive topics doesn't have that freedom, which is what we're trying to protect.

Re:Does it really matter?

[tfoss]

the audience of blogs is very, very small.

And that makes, say Josh Marshall different from, say this or this how? I don't think I buy the 'but more people read us' argument.

-Ted

Re:Does it really matter?

[HAMgeek]

If they're robbing a store I really don't care to hear about some circumstances that the writer of the story thinks justifies thier criminal behavior. In fact the only reason I care about thier race is if it's part of a description intended to help folks identify the culprits. If their boss screwed them out of their pay that's a different story and any attempt to link the two is nothing more than an attempt to ignite sympathy so that just maybe they'll get a lesser sentence if the case ever gets into court. Also, if some folks come along and interrupt a robbery I could really care less about thier past. Unless there is some concrete evidence that the ex KKK NRA local leaders called up Joe and his friends and told them to go out looking for hyphenated Americans and when they find them watch for any excuse to shoot, the racist proclivities of the local NRA leadership is irrelevant to the story unless the writer has an axe to grind. News stories tinted with iron shavings like my second example should be limited to the editorial pages, not presented as actual news. Or at the very least have a obligatory "In my opinion" or "I think" inserted.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Roblimo]

I belong to the Internet Press Guild and the Society of Professional Journalists. I've written thousands of articles for Web sites, newspapers, and magazines, and I've authored three non-fiction books. Few would question my status as a professional journalist, entitled to protection under the law.

What about when I post a story on my personal site? Am I suddenly an amateur?

- Robin

Re:Does it really matter?

[orac2]

I think the test for being able to avail of a shield law should be along the lines of "Am I publishing original information that is of public interest?"

I'm a professional journalist too, but I don't expect to be able to avail of any shield law when I post to my personal LiveJournal, as the random trivia of my life is not of general public interest. Now, I could imagine a situation where I did publish actual journalism in my LiveJournal, with the presumption that I could claim protection under a shield law, but the fact that you and I can point to evidence that we are "members of the press," beyond our ability to post some HTML, does makes a difference, just as there are very broad definitions of what constitutes a religion, but you and I might have a hard time convincing the IRS to give us tax-exempt status just because we declared ourselves the Popes of Chillietown.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the statute should be worded broadly enough so that the courts have the latitude to include people who are not part of traditional media structures (online or off) under the shield law protections on a case-by-case basis. However, I don't think that a blogger can avail of a presumption that they are a journalist, given that most blogs either are not intended to be of general public interest, or contain reposts or editorialization of content generated elsewhere (after all, if you're not doing original reporting, you have no sources to protect, and so don't need a shield law) and in any case, presumptively extending the shield law to every American who has Internet access would be problematic (remember, as the Miller case highlighted, journalists must have the ability to protect all their sources, not just those used for stories that are published.)

Finally, as a practical matter, if it is a case where I can get Federal shield protection for articles I write professionally, but not for articles I write independently, I'd be more than happy to get that. It's more important that the work which serves 65% of the population (in the case of local newspapers) across a broad spectrum gets protection than the work that serves 2% of the population, and a 2% that tends to be already pretty privileged at that.

Re:Does it really matter?

[ReverendLoki]

I'm off similar mind, but I err just on the other side. I'm thinking that a blog should be assumed to have that shield, and before they can be prosecuted (or whatever) otherwise, it must be proven first that the blog has no journalistic merit. Now admittedly, I have not spent a lot of time browser a lot of the blogs out there, but that's how I see it. Sort of along the lines of innocent until proven guilty (though those who think all journalists are guilty might disagree with the analogy), we should initially give them the benefit of the doubt. If it can be shown that there is a reasonable probability that the blogger has been acting as a paid shill, with malicious intent, or otherwise without intention of contributing to the common good, then legal action can move forward.

Re:Does it really matter?

[radish]

So, what happens when the readership of blogs is 1/3 of newspapers?

Then we'll talk. :) I don't think this'll happen for some time, if ever, so I may never have to answer the question!

According to this page, boingboing - a pretty popular blog - gets around 300k readers a day. That's three times the previously quoted LA daily newspaper. So - answer the question. Are the people who contribute to boingboing journalists?

Re:Does it really matter?

[orac2]

I'm thinking that a blog should be assumed to have that shield

My concern with erring on the side of giving the blogger the presumption of journalism, is that shield protection would then get extended to every single American with an Internet connection -- as the Miller case has highlighted, source protection must extend to stories that journalists haven't published yet and even stories that never get published at all. If everyone could presumptively claim the protection of the shield law on the basis that they were going to publish a blog entry based on a conversation, then practically every conversation would be privileged until a judge declared otherwise. This would cause huge problems for the US legal and civic systems.

Re:Does it really matter?

[orac2]

300,000 visits is still a tiny number compared to the number of people around the world who could have read Boing Boing, or any other blog that day, but who actually read a newspaper, or went to CNN.com, etc. Again, look at the Forrester numbers: 2% visit blogs regularly, 65% read a local paper.

That aside, some of the people who contribute to Boing Boing are journalists, but I wouldn't make that presumption about someone based on seeing their byline on the Boing Boing front page alone, in the same way that I would make that presumption if I saw someone's byline on the front page of USA Today or The New York Times. Some bloggers probably do deserve shield law protection, but I don't think blogs as a whole currently deserve the presumption of that protection in the same way that established media structures, from the local community newspaper to CNN, whether online or off, do.

Re:Does it really matter?

[hesiod]

> (the trivia of your dog's toilet training doesn't cut it) [...] after all, the blogger doesn't have any sources to protect in the first place!

Oh, I see, just because it's not a human, you can post lewd pictures of your dog taking a dump? How can you suggest that the dog doesn't deserve any protection??? Ludicrous! It is shameful to see our canine brethren treated as objects like that! You are a sick, sick person! ;)

Re:Does it really matter?

[ReverendLoki]

That can be easily handled by a reasonability test - is there suitable reason to believe that the person is only using this defense solely to gai the protection of the shield law? If this is reasonable, then proceed; it is now up to the defendant to prove that the conversation was held with journalistic intent.

Basically, the only bloggers who will be able to readily and successfully claim protection under the shield law are those with existing blogs that have a reasonably established history. They can then stand up in court, state that the conversation in question was held as a journalist*, and point to their blog, and be done with it.

Some hypothetical questions here: What about an unemployed journalist? What if he takes a temp job in another field while he continues to look for a new job in journalism? How about after he's been at that temp job for a year? 5? What if he never finds that job, and starts a blog instead?

* Even at this point, I would imagine the judge can apply a reasonability test to the conversation - held as a clearly stated interview, or as gather info for the site, or undercover investigation, sure. As pillowtalk after a midnight romp, not so much.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Widowwolf]

1000k..dont you mean *pinky to mouth* 1 million?

Re:Does it really matter?

[pudge]

I've seen those disregarded quite a bit lately, so where's the benefit?

Can you cite a law that you are referring to that has been disregarded? I highly doubt it.

Can you even cite an example where the law is being disregarded? Again, I doubt it.

Most people seem to think Judith Miller's right to not reveal her source was disregarded. There's a little problem with that line of thinking though: no law recognizes such a right at the federal level, which is where this investigation is taking place. Her right was not disregarded because it didn't exist in the first place.

Shield laws exist only at the state level, and Lugar is trying to "fix" that.

Unforunately, it's a terrible idea, and this is a big part of why: no definition of "journalist" is suitable. And any definition you do come up with makes the journalists themselves beholden to the definers. So an Internet journalist isn't going to give Lugar a hard time, so he will be more likely to include him as a journalist in the legislation. Or maybe we will have Journalism Licenses, and then journalists (or their employers) have to kiss up to some government official who hands them out.

There's no logical reason why a journalist needs special protection. Shield laws are stupid. Journalists are not special citizens deserving of, or in need of, special rights. All citizens should get the same legal protections, and all citizens should have the same legal responsibilities.

The common reasons why the press says they need shield laws are all nonsense, every one of them. The most common these days is that anonymous sources won't talk unless they can get a guarantee of privacy; Good! In the overwhelming majority of cases, anonymous sources are improperly used, and in every single case, cannot be well-trusted anyway.

They say the public has an interest in getting this information; but no, most of the time, your publisher's bank account does, and if it is that important that the public must know information it can't trust anyway because your source won't be revealed, then it is important enough for you to risk jail time, no?

They say without special protection, there may be government backlash; but all citizens should have such protection, if it is necessary. And so on.

Oh, and I have a degree in journalism, so I am not completely talking out my ass.

Re:Does it really matter?

[pudge]

Sorry if this sounds hostile, but to a journalist the shield law is a significant issue.

So? Screw them.

Sorry if this sounds hostile, but to me, shield laws are complete bullshit. And I've worked for large dailies too, and have a degree in journalism.

When sources are not assured *by law* that journalists won't be allowd to keep their sources confidential, they quit talking and as a result government becomes less accountable.

That's like saying if you can't drive 100 mph, you are less likely to get to work on time, which hurts the economy. Most of the time when you drive that fast, you cause a ton of problems. By far, the biggest reason why people consume less mainstream news now is because the journalism profession regularly uses anonymous sources.

If the journalism profession actually had some restraint in its use of anonymous sources, it might get some sympathy on this point. But apart from a few newspapers sprinkled here and there, there is no restraint, and certainly there's none at all in the major news outlets, from Fox to CNN to NYT to WaPo.

But worse, your prediction of doom is clearly false. Tell me, what organization in this country has more anonymous leaks than any other? Easy: the federal government. And guess where there is no shield law protecting anonymous sources? That's right: federal law. There is no federal shield law. And yet we see anonymous sources all over the place, which you say wouldn't exist without a law to protect the journalists who report on them.

So, you wanna take that back?

Simple...

[mightybaldking]

A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

Re:Simple...

[revscat]

A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

Yeah? Says who?

Re:Simple...

[evil agent]

A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest.

It's not that simple. Define "reasonably." What's reasonable to one person might not be so reasonable to another.

Re:Simple...

[garcia]

A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

So, as long as the author is writing something of their own and not reposting someone else's work then they are a journalist? Does that open AP wires, written up in other media, not journalistic media?

So, my website where I write about my experiences elsewhere through creative writing and sometimes "journalism" does fall under the limited guidelines you propose?

Sorry, but there are just too many different kinds of "blogs" for you to lump them under the umbrella of reposting articles from The Times.

Re:Simple...

[ergo98]

For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

So is Slashdot news? Basically you take original content (sometimes two paragraph blog entries that hilariously get reported as "articles"), have someone random person mishmash and portray it out of context, and then report it on Slashdot. News for Nerds!

Of course most blog "journalists" are really nothing more than unassociated OpEds (usually with a terrible bias) - It isn't "news" to give your opinion on something, yet that's what most so-called blog journalists are doing. They aren't out there digging up facts or presenting new information, but instead they're regurgitating and reassembling second or third-hand facts. Sort of like that sentence just did to the one before.

Re:Simple...

[ezweave]

While that is the "classic" defenition of a journalist, as many have pointed out, much of what is published in the media is actually the work of PR firms, re-releasing modified press releases. And I am not talking about those fake articles in you copy of Reader's Digest. Real magazine articles can often be traced back to a dubious source: some marketing firm that is pushing PR.

Considering the state of affairs, I think it is immoral to assume that because some bloggers may be fueled by corporations, it would not be fair to include them in the bill. Real journalists are bought and sold as well. Would these same protections have prevented Stephen Glass from getting caught (probably not, but he was a liar)? What about the state of things at the NY Times? That is what is dumb, you really have to consider the source. Professional journalists lie and slant as much as the next guy, elevating them above some info hungry blogger is a serious flaw in judgement. They both may be quacks, but that isn't the point.

Re:Simple...

[soundvessel]

A journalist is someone who makes a bona-fide attempt to report news reasonably seen as in the public interest. For example, reporting or commentary on politics, religion, Tara Reid's breasts is all news. Reposting an article from the Times is not.

*wakes up*

What, huh? Is there something new about Tara Reid's breasts that I haven't heard? Are you withholding information from the public?

Re:Simple...

[rich_r]

If it seems reasonable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus, then it is, apparently.

Re:Simple...

[mightybaldking]

The courts have very clear tests on the definition of "reasonable". That word was chosen very carefully.

Re:Simple...

[mightybaldking]

Well, I'd tell you, but then they'd probably force me to reveal my sources.

Re:Simple...

[mightybaldking]

So, as long as the author is writing something of their own and not reposting someone else's work then they are a journalist? No, they have to be reasonably reporting the news in the public interest. Does that open AP wires, written up in other media, not journalistic media? I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but I'll take a stab at it: You are confusing journalism with journalist. AP wire stories are journalism. The AP employee who wrote it is a journalist. Posting an AP wire story in my blog doesn't make me a journalist, it makes me an editor. Presumably, if I didn't write the story, I don't have an information on the sources, so the point is moot.

Politicians don't want free speech.

[CyricZ]

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in a free press. Why is that? Because a truly free press in the US would show both Democrats and Republicans as the scum that they are. Luckily, that's what we're beginning to see with blogs. The faults in the system are being exposed. And out come the politicians, trying to dam up that freedom of expression gusher before it's too late for them.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. How about we have citizens that are allowed to express any opinion they want whenever they want via any means they have available.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[revscat]

Ah yes, cynicism.

Remind us, please, how many Democrats are currently under indictment. Or hell, go back 10 years, 20. Take your pick.

Democrats have had their problems, but they have never even approached the levels of corruption the Republican party has perfected and institutionalized.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Albertosaurus]

Hmm... Since the JFK election is too far back, I'll have to confine myself to the current situation in New Orleans, Whitewater, Ruby Ridge, and the Clinton Impeachement. Take your pick.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Oligonicella]

They and you can, in any media you wish. An opinion. What the "journalists" do is to present "facts", not opinion.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

You sound like a milita man or the Unabomber.

If, by "Republicans [and] Democrats", you mean people who are loyal to their party first and foremost, and use party affiliation as their compass for morality, then you might be right.

I, for one, don't honestly believe these people are in the majority or that public servants, including the elected ones, are trying to jeopardize the rights and ideals upon which their great nation was founded. Most of these people could be making more money and have more power in any tangible sense in the private sector.

Sometimes they lose their way or perspective, yes. Sometimes they feel the ends justify the means, yes. And the system is the worst one around -- except for any other. But it's my contention that for the most part they honestly believe they are protecting citizens rights and the nation -- even when they're wrong.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You came up with a whole lot of examples. I can only come up with Tom DeLay and karl rove (grand jury investigation) currently under investigation oh and the Frist stuff about a blind trust is coming out now.

Btw, why go back to JFK when you can go back to Nixon?

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[evil agent]

Don't be so naive. A politician is a politician. Just because you pur "Democrat" next to your name doesn't make you less corruptable.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[zippthorne]

Before the internet, loonies like you (not loony for disliking the predominant parties, but loony for thinking that a) they're EVIL* and b) the new trend is really all that different) used to pass around badly photocopied pamphlets.

*I would argue that the interests of any political party are simply mostly orthogonal to the welfare of their constituents.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, don't honestly believe these people are in the majority or that public servants, including the elected ones, are trying to jeopardize the rights and ideals upon which their great nation was founded.

Okay, then 1) restrict scope to the United States Congress and 2) pay attention. You'll soon find that if not a majority, very close to a majority of Congress is dedicated to removing the separation of church and state that Madison and Jefferson enshrined in the Constitution, and doing this not by amendment but by appointing activist judges who believe we are a Christian nation. You've also got the folks who don't believe in restraint of federal interference in state affairs and have used "interstate commerce" to pass laws managing intrastate affairs. Then start looking at the Jose Padilla case and the situation at Abu Ghraib and you'll notice how Bush granted himself the authority to issue bills of attainder and to otherwise enact legislation on his own without Congress getting involved, even issuing laws overriding international treaty.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[revscat]

New Orleans was a failure at every level, not criminal. (Cynical replies of "that's what you think" or some such do not change this.)

Whitewater resulted in one conviction of a former business partner of the Clintons, not anyone associated with the Democratic party.

Ruby Ridge was an FBI op, and while tragic and borderline criminal, says nothing about endemic corruption in the party. Ditto Waco.

Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about a private sexual affair, not for corruption.

Would you like to compare this with DeLay, Frist, Rove, Libby, Abramoff, and etc.? Because I would be happy to.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... Since the JFK election is too far back, I'll have to confine myself to the current situation in New Orleans, Whitewater, Ruby Ridge, and the Clinton Impeachement. Take your pick.

Alright, I'll pick Ruby Ridge, which happened under George H. W. Bush and has nothing to do with Democrats and about as much to do with Republicans. As I recall, the shooter was a Libertarian, and President Bush cancelled his membership in the National Rifle Association when they published an editorial calling all members of the federal government "jack-booted thugs". I could dissect your other examples as well, but you'd probably find some minor error in my response and think you won the whole argument. Of course, if the poster had gone back 30 years, we'd have had the Abscam scandal taking down several politicians of both parties. Oh, and there's the check bouncing scandal that was cross-party and within the timeframe.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[revscat]

Don't be so cynical. Of course putting a (D) next to your name doesn't make you immune from corruption, but based upon reasearch I have done myself I believe the Republican party to be far, FAR more corrupt than the Democratic.

I leave such exercises up to you, if you so desire. But by no means don't take my word for it.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Brushfireb]

I might agree with you, but it is not out of lack of want or desire to be as corrupted and ridiculous.

Moreso, it stems from the democratic parties real inability to organize their party effectively. The republicans with proper business friends have no such troubles. I would bet everything I have that if the dems could get organized, we would see an equal amount of corruption.

Just as the GP said, Politics is politics. If you think differently, you are only kidding yourself and playing into their A vs B mentality. Regardless of whether you decide to vote for Giant Douche or Turd Sandwhich, you are still getting worth berating.

BTW, your sig is interesting, and I fully disagree with it, but I dont want to debate it.

B

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[bluGill]

DeLay is still under investigation. He claims that he is innocent of wrong doing. (or perhaps an honest mistake, something that normal people would agree is trivial - not to say it is right)

Until the investigation is finished and we know the truth (if indeed they find the truth...) I insist that you keep quiet about the issue. There may or may not be anything here.

When you are powerful and have enemies, which both parties do, those enemies will from time to time plant evidence of wrongdoing that you did not do. This needs to be separated from wrongdoing that you do.

The republicans have a majority right now (though not by much), so it is no surprise that there are a lot of investigations of them. Some will prove false, some will prove true.

Besides, a good part of what DeLay is accused of is violating laws that are unconstitutional (campaign finance reform), and something that I would expect democrats would be jumping to defend him for. (though there are also charges of money laundering which are something that if true are reason to put him in prison)

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[jc42]

Just because you pur "Democrat" next to your name doesn't make you less corruptable.

Heh; of course not. But you have some bodacious standards to live up to, if you're to compete with the recent crop of Republicans.

I recall around 13 years ago, reading a report that listed all the presidential appointeed who had been jailed for felonies. It seems that Ronald Reagan had not only had more appointees jailed; he'd had more jailed than all previous administrations combined. I was duly impressed.

I wonder if this list is still around somewhere? Probably on some blog ...

Of course, Bush I tried to outdo him, but his effort was cut short by being defeated for a second term. Clinton wasn't even a contender; by this standard, he was one of the country's most honest politicians (hard as may be to believe).

Maybe Bush II can top Reagan's record. He has a good start, and three more years to score. And remember that most of the Reagan administration's convictions came in the last couple of years, and the years after he left office. So it'll probably be around 2012 or 2015 before we really know whether the current Team Dubya was officially the most corrupt in history, or has taken second place to Team Ronald.

Why does this seem like a sports competition?

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats have had their problems, but they have never even approached the levels of corruption the Republican party has perfected and institutionalized.

Who is Bill Clinton, Alex?

Unless you don't consider molesting underlings and pardoning anyone who's ever given you money corruption. And let's not forget his classified information stealing buddy Sandy Berger. I guess Teddy Kennedy drowning his date before he was a Sentor doesn't count as corruption, but how about his politically connected family covering it up?

Maybe, since your profile links to Air America, you mean corruption in the Michael Moore sense. In which case I need only mention that George Soros, the largest finacier of the DNC was/is a member of the evil Carlyle group.

If you want to go further back, we can talk about LBJ, but you probably don't want to go anywhere near that. Of course so far we've only spoke of politicians at the federal level. Illinois, anyone?

Yeah, the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Kelson]

Of course governments don't want people to have free speech.

That's why the people who wrote our constitution put it in the Bill of Rights.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[mattthomas]

First off, let me say that I support free speech. I think that censorship is almost always bad, but there are also certain things which a society, any society, cannot allow to be disseminated, in print, online, or otherwise. Each society must decide what these few things are and suppress them. Censorship is hard, as you can't censor people's thoughts and feelings. You can't censor word of mouth. Censorship is almost always abused but login to freenet and you'll see that there are some things which are better unprinted.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[hkmwbz]

"Who is Bill Clinton, Alex?"

The guy who got a blowjob, and that started a witch hunt which got him into a whole lot more trouble than he deserved.

Meanwhile, the guy who lied to bring America to war is still in power...

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[CyricZ]

So why are you, apparently as an American, sitting on your fat ass (quite possibly eating some more KFC) doing about your president who has lied repeatedly to you and the world?

The least you could do is protest. And I don't mean here on Slashdot or some blog.

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

You say tomato, I say tomato. You say got a blowjob, I say sexually harrased a subordinate and then perjured himself. Surely that is the kind of man you want in the most powerful position in the world.

Meanwhile, you can't name one thing Bush said in the buildup to war that was a concious lie.

Final Jeopardy time...

Re:Politicians don't want free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You say tomato, I say tomato. You say got a blowjob, I say sexually harrased a subordinate and then perjured himself. Surely that is the kind of man you want in the most powerful position in the world."

Harrassed! Wow, why didn't Monica feel harrassed?

"Meanwhile, you can't name one thing Bush said in the buildup to war that was a concious lie."

He lied about WMD.

Definition of journalist

[thc69]

Hmm..Journalist....

Doesn't it have something to do with fail-safe filesystems?

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[stanmann]

You are right, only logged in users should be considered Journalists, Anonymous cowards and the like are just slime.[/sarcasm]

Amendment XIV

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

sounds like all Americans (except you illegal alien and H1-B dudes) are subject to equal protection.

Re:Amendment XIV

[stephentyrone]

IANAL, but amendment XIV applies only to state laws, not federal. the federal government is free to grant protections to "journalists" and withold those protections from others, under this amendment. so the 14th amendment has no bearing on the issue at had.

that said, the 5th amentment has been interpreted by the supreme court as enforcing equal-protection guarantees on federal law, as well.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Scrameustache]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

sounds like all Americans (except you illegal alien and H1-B dudes) are subject to equal protection.

Interresting.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Ignignot]

Insightful my ass. You make it sound like they can't make laws which restrict some people from doing certain things. Can a child molester live near a school? Can a blind person drive a car? Can a blogger who is not a member of the press and has never been to a school for journalism call himself a journalist?

Re:Amendment XIV

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya! Thomas Paine went to J-School !!!

Re:Amendment XIV

[Krater76]

That amendment doesn't have anything to do with journalism. The issue at hand is that come defined as a 'journalist' can keep source confidental without being able to be forced to given them up. So your amendment says you can't abridge rights, this bill gives a certain group more rights. Other examples are police and firefighters. Policemen and firefighters can break laws to protect the masses (within reason, of course). It's a privelege they are granted. Journalists are granted the privelege of protecting their confidential sources but there's no definition of who is a journalist. The standard definition is too broad and would probably cover bloggers. Ultimately, they should include bloggers and once a problem happens let the Supreme Court do it's job and decide for sure who is a journalist and who isn't. That's what they are there for.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Anonymous Coward]

"School for journalism"? Are you saying that an uderprivileged person should not be considered a jouranlist merely because they don't have a piece of paper? I believe in equal rights. A child molester has a right to live anywhere they like after their sentence has been fulfilled. The parents have a right to send their kid to different school if they don't like it. Alternatively, the parent has a right to kill the molester out of fear and then they have a right to a trial, and then have a right to be acquitted by a sympathetic jury. Its all part of the great cycle of life.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Oligonicella]

"A child molester has a right to live anywhere they like after their sentence has been fulfilled."

You need to read more. While I agree with your piece of paper tirade, you went a step too far without thinking it through.

The c-m will have restrictions on where they can live imposed upon them. The parent may kill the c-m, certainly. The parent by no means has the right to do so.

Re:Amendment XIV

[DarkIye]

Please read more carefully:

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

A child molester has been granted the benefit of due process. Due process has found him guilty, and has therefore restricted his rights for the safety of society. This is within the constraints of the stated amendment.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Anonymous Coward]

The supreme court only has to make decisions like that when the law is poorly written. If they include a careful definition of journalist in the law, the Supreme Court most likely won't have to interfere with its interpretation on that point. For example, it may not include bloggers implicitly, since the term is faddish, but it could define a journalist as a person whose primary or significant occupation is to research, report or give commentary on the news. This would protect bloggers who are full-time or are spending more than 20 hours a week or some significant showing of serious work in journalistic endeavors. Then when a blogger attempts to defend himself using the shield law, he must only show that he passes the test that is defined in the law, rather then worry about whether his words are printed on paper or on the web. The more explicit the test, the less likely it will be clarified by SCOTUS.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Anonymous Coward]

Interresting.

Why? I assume, based on the text you bolded, you find the post to be somewhat contradictory. Let me help you:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

So, no, illegal aliens don't fall into that those categories. Unless the term "illegal alien" has been recently redefined.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Random832]

Welcome to basic reading comprehension!

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first clause applies to citizens, the other two apply to any person. Which is fine, because they are talking about different protections as well. Non-citizens don't get "privileges or immunities", but they still get life, liberty, property, and equal protection.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Random832]

The c-m will have restrictions on where they can live imposed upon them.

Yes, for the duration of their sentence. Which happens to be a life sentence, regardless of what it may be called. Wonderful system we have, isn't it?

Re:Amendment XIV

[benjamindees]

Interesting indeed. And, look, our AC friend has responded to your insight with more mindless dribble, failing to comprehend (or read even?) the passage in question. Probably he is one of these dipshits who nowadays have convinced themselves that the words in the Constitution have no real meaning. This AC in particular seems to be influenced by the growth of nationalist bullshit in the US (and around the world) beginning in and throughout the 20th century.

So, of course, he's convinced himself that only citizens are worthy of the rights and protections of the Constitution. No doubt he picked up these views in connection with some sort of US military organization, since many of those organizations have adopted and like to spread the Oriental-Jewish view of conscription as a rite of passage into citizenship.

Re:Amendment XIV

[Anonymous Coward]

the federal government is free to grant protections to "journalists" and withold those protections from others

So the federal government can say, "White people are hereby given the right to sit near the front of the bus"? Then when a white person gets on a bus, if all the front seats are full and there's a black person sitting there, the white person can say "this black person is infringing on my rights, unless he gets up and goes to the back."

Maybe we can also have some laws that say that white land-owning men, have the special right to be exempt from taxes, DWI laws, etc. And they each get ten votes apiece, in any election.

Re:Amendment XIV

[StikyPad]

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

Except that part covers illegals as well. That's why the terrorist suspects are kept in Cuba.

Re:Amendment XIV

[benjamindees]

You make it sound like they can't make laws which restrict some people

They can't. That's the whole point of equal protection. You can outlaw acts, but not people.

Of course, it's not surprising that you think otherwise, since this is yet another of the many protections against tyranny that have been completely gutted and ignored in the US.

Can a child molester live near a school?

Child molestors have committed crimes. If their punishment for said crime restricts where they can live, then such restriction is acceptable.

Can a blind person drive a car?

Blind people, however, are entitled to equal protection. Being blind is not a crime. This means you can't make a law that discriminates against them. You can, perhaps, create a realistic, non-discriminatory test that tests for the ability to drive. (By non-discriminatory I mean the test can't just consist of "Are you blind?", but must actually test driving ability) Perhaps some blind people would pass it. Perhaps, with assistive devices, blind people can be great drivers. Of course, if you just prohibit blind people from driving instead, under your own ignorant assumptions, then we'll never know, and you would have violated their right to equal protection.

Can a blogger who is not a member of the press and has never been to a school for journalism call himself a journalist?

I can call myself a pink elephant if I'd like. That happens to be protected speech. Ironically, that is protected by exactly the same Constitutional Amendment that protects "the press". It's here. Notice how journalists aren't mentioned anywhere, only speech and press?

William Randolph Hearst never went to school for journalism and he sure as hell was a journalist. You act like "the press" is some sort of club or something. The goddamn Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect clubs. It was written to protect rights. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of the press. The press is not a group of people but a method of printing, of communicating. Before computers, a common method of communication was via a printing press. I am pressing the keys on my keyboard right now, trying to get this concept through to you.

My pressing on keys is protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether I'm a goddamn journalist.

Re:Amendment XIV

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

"Can a child molester live near a school? Can a blind person drive a car? Can a blogger who is not a member of the press and has never been to a school for journalism call himself a journalist?"

Bad analogy. The first two things are potentially harmful. The third is not, and could actually be construed as being beneficial.

Re:Amendment XIV

[CAIMLAS]

Actually,

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The fed, at least according to the constitution, has no say in the matter.

Re:Amendment XIV

[alan_dershowitz]

Anyone and everyone levelling accusations without naming sources can be very, very harmful.

This is why professional journalists are extremely careful about using anonymous sources.

Re:Amendment XIV

[molo]

Note the difference between clauses which only effect citizens and clauses which effect "persons" - non-citizens also. Equal protection applies to all persons. Unfortunately, many lawmakers forget this, and the courts have not enforced it as aggressively as I would hope.

-molo

Re:Amendment XIV

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

The analogy is still bad either way.

A child molester near a school has a great potential of causing harm. A blind person driving a car has a great potential of causing harm.

What makes a "certified" journalist less likely to use anonymous sources than a blogger?

Re:Amendment XIV

[a.d.trick]

all men are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Re:Amendment XIV

[hotdiggitydawg]

Can a blind person drive a car?

Yes. Next question...

Debated this in high school

[LeonGeeste]

This actually came up as a debate topic when I was in high school. The topic was something along the lines of "Resolved: that the First Amendment ought to protect journalists from revealing confidential sources." One clever guy on the debate though of a cool argument that if the government really protected "journalists" from revealing confidential sources, that would mean it would have to, at some point, define journalist. Now, however it defines a journalist, it will also have to be the one interpreting it, which effectively means state regulation of journalism: you meet their (self-serving) standards, or you don't get to shield sources. This means the government has three options:

1) Allow anyone to refuse to reveal where they got info, all the time (bad).

2) Allow no one to refuse to reveal where the got info, ever (bad).

3) Arbitrarily pick and choose who counts as a "journalist" and thus must reveal info (bad).

I don't think the right to shield a source should have anything to do with who you are (journalist or not), but some other standard weighing public interest concerns against the need for confidential sources to feel safe.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Taladar]

1) Allow anyone to refuse to reveal where they got info, all the time (bad).

Please tell us why this is bad

Re:Debated this in high school

[nharmon]

Criminal investigations would be a thing of the past.

Re:Debated this in high school

[DigiShaman]

It's not bad. It just leaves such a journalist in a light of little to no credibility. As such, they would be compelled to reveal their sources if they wish to be taken seriously.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Greatmoose]

When it contradicts law-enforcement and national security, for one.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Jherek Carnelian]

When it contradicts law-enforcement and national security, for one.

He said, "tell us why" - not "tell us when." Your position is literally completely without justification.

Re:Debated this in high school

[markhahn]

what's wrong with option 1? there are other laws that handle the case where refusing to reveal a source makes the refuser an accomplice to a crime.

IMO, that's the main problem with lawmaking today - pols just applying patches to what they see as bugs in the legal code, rather than coming up with principles. yes, sometimes you really do need to refactor the law.

Re:Debated this in high school

[stanmann]

There are consequences for failing to reveal sources, but those consequences are fairly minor IMO, and those consequences should be meted out fairly. Just as there are consequences to certain forms of "free speech", So long as it is the behaviour and not the message that is being penalized, I see no reason to treat "journalists" any different from anyone else.

we aren't suggesting censorship, but censure. If you choose to protest Bush, or Clinton(hilary) weilding a bullhorn and unclothed at 2AM in a residential area of downtown Washington DC, There are penalties. OTOH if you do so in a commercial district during lunch hour and make certain not to obstruct the normal flow of business and traffic there should be no penalties.

IF you want to stand outside the president's residence and shout baby killer, you are(last I checked) free to do so.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Oligonicella]

When someone knows and disseminates information about a specific felony. The fact that they know the perp and profited from said knowledge makes them guilty of obstruction of justice if they refuse.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Oligonicella]

The discussion is on a law of exemption. Those other laws would be abrogated by it for certain individuals.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just have a professional exam that people have to pass to be journalists? then, people have to pass it every year or every few years to keep their licenses.

that way, if you want to blog from your bedroom and you understand the concept of objectivity, you understand fact checking, you understand what it is to quote accurately and in context, and you understand the responsibility to disseminate accurate information, then you get to be called a journalist. if you are a member of a major news organization and you cannot pass the test, then you lose your license.

other jobs and hobbies (lawyers, doctors, real estate agents) that are considered professions are held to professional guidelines, and journalism should not be separate from those in that respect.

of course, there are issues of what professional orgnization gets to make the test, but i think that it is certainly doable. i think that what to say about, say, the bush administration is very different from the acceptable methods of gathering and reporting facts. i think right and left and everyone in between can come to some kind of agreement on the acceptable methods of gathering and reporting facts.

i am comfortable with people who understand the fundamentals of journalism and who publish what they consider journalism being protected under any shield law. to protect all citizens is, as another poster has pointed out, a pretty good way to cripple the criminal justice system.

Re:Debated this in high school

[bluGill]

Why? The only people who won't spill their guts are the people who wouldn't before anyway.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Nick Harkin]

People are far more likely to reveal the identity and plans of 'Mr Big' if they know they won't be found out, and Mr Big won't know who they are.

If the journalist must reveal who the source is, then they [the sources] are less likely to talk, as they fear for their own lives. (And those of their friends, family, children, etc.)

Re:Debated this in high school

[raoul666]

Why? There's already the fifth amendment to keep people from talking when they'd incriminate themselves. So what would this stop? People who just don't want to testify? Is that such a huge problem?

Re:Debated this in high school

[nharmon]

We're not talking about incriminating themselves...but rather incriminating others. If you witness a crime, and are subpeonad to testify, and you don't tell the court what you know...you will be punished.

Re:Debated this in high school

[sjames]

Criminal investigations would be a thing of the past.

I doubt that. In fact, I suspect NOT shielding sources is more harmful to criminal investigation. If a source doesn't feel comfortable coming forward, the information remains secret. If a reporter doesn't feel safe reporting information from a confidential source, the information remains secret. Wouldn't the police rather have information but not know where it came from rather than have no information?

Re:Debated this in high school

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Allow anyone to refuse to reveal where they got info, all the time (bad).

You accidentally mislabeled this one, the correct solution, as "bad"

Re:Debated this in high school

[dr.badass]

I don't think the right to shield a source should have anything to do with who you are (journalist or not), but some other standard weighing public interest concerns against the need for confidential sources to feel safe.

This is exactly what Whistleblower Protection is all about. Unfortunately, it seems that only three or four people on earth even know about it. It isn't perfect, but it certainly exists.

This effectively is a fourth option: 4) Allow anyone that reveals confidential information in the public interest protection from legal retaliation.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the right to remain silent.

Yet criminal investigations continue.

Re:Debated this in high school

[arose]

OTOH if you do so in a commercial district during lunch hour and make certain not to obstruct the normal flow of business and traffic there should be no penalties.

Weilding a bullhorn and unclothed in a commercial district during lunch hour?

Re:Debated this in high school

[Murasaki Skies]

What, you don't do that?

Re:Debated this in high school

[gstoddart]

1) Allow anyone to refuse to reveal where they got info, all the time (bad).

Please tell us why this is bad

Verifiability and accountability.

If you had blanket permissions to say anything you wanted, claim it came from an anonymous source, and be protected in saying that .... well, we'd see all sorts of things being said which were suddenly classed as protected 'journalism'.

So when that guy who lives down the road who starts putting up a blog entry that he has it on good authority that Taladar (717494) is a bed-wetter and a child molester (and I don't meant to imply you are either), you'd be screwed, because you'd have no way to defend against it -- it would be protected journalism, with a protected source. Case closed. No recourse, he's a journalist after all.

There has to be some level at which you need to prove where something came from and that it's true.

Re:Debated this in high school

[Anonymous Coward]

"So when that guy who lives down the road who starts putting up a blog entry that he has it on good authority that Taladar (717494) is a bed-wetter and a child molester (and I don't meant to imply you are either), you'd be screwed, because you'd have no way to defend against it -- it would be protected journalism, with a protected source. Case closed. No recourse, he's a journalist after all."

Then the insulted party can sue for libel.

This attempt to control the media is unacceptable

[revscat]

According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity."

Why am I not surprised?

A grassroots news dissemination method comes into being and the powers-that-be are doing what they can to crimp it so that it doesn't cause them so much squirming. Journalism is an something you do, not who you are employed by. And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience.

The bill is necessary to help the United States regain its status as an "exemplar" of press freedom, Lugar told the IAPA. "Even as we are advocating for free press (abroad)... we'd better clean up our own act," Lugar said.

I believe that about as much as I believe anything said by the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh, et. al. This bill is, intentionally or not, an usurpation of our rights. Calling feces "cake" does not make it edible, Senator.

If not press, then what?

[j_cavera]

Especially considering that the "mainstream press" is relying more and more on the bloggers for their news. As I see it, this is nothing more than freelance journalism, which is now and always has been a respected and vital part of the mainstream news agencies. Certainly the distinction has been made that freelance journalists are journalists by trade whereas bloggers are full time (x) and only part-time journalists, but is this is fair distinction to make, as many freelance journalists also act as consultants, analysts, etc.?

Re:If not press, then what?

[stlhawkeye]

Especially considering that the "mainstream press" is relying more and more on the bloggers for their news. As I see it, this is nothing more than freelance journalism, which is now and always has been a respected and vital part of the mainstream news agencies.

President Clinton said of Rush Limbaugh at one point during his presidency that Limbaugh is dangerous because people take what he says to be truth, but there's no "truth detection" apparatus that holds him accountable. He's not a "journalist." It's not like he's writing stories for the Boston Globe, where his statements receive some oversight.

Clinton had a good point, and was eerily precient. Now we have Limbaugh and some of the traditional media using blogs as sources for their stories, news, and opinions. This is fine in theory, but dangerous in that anybody can say anything on a blog.

The problem isn't the bloggings. It's like people who hate standardized testing. The tool is the problem, it's the way it is being used. I posted about this not too long ago, but we have a lamentable tendancy in this country to blame tools for the actions of people. It's the gun's fault you shot somebody with it, it's the cigarette's fault that smoked it, it's the marijuana's fault that you got high, it's the TV's fault that you watched it, it's the credit card's fault that you charged too much shit on it. And when tools are blamed, corporations are sued, and individuals are held unaccountable for their actions. This is great in the short term because the "little guy" gets to screw big business for a huge chunk of cash, and nobody except a handful of blue bloods really genuinely likes big business. The problem is that our government sanctions corporations and shields their ownership (stockholders) from liability when those corporations misbehave.

We're tiptoeing towards a sociey in which whenever people abuse or misuse something, the tool is blamed, the company that created it gets sued for it, and no individual citizen actually gets blamed. Wealth is redistributed, the stock takes a temporary hit, prices go up, and life marches on. In the end, with the exception of Martha Stewart and a few Enron guys, nobody actually is punished for breaking the law, and the people we're trying so hard to help get hurt the most, especially those who didn't ask for and don't want our help. Ask anybody who smokes.

In the raw

[Medievalist]

Most bloggers do not charge for their works, therefore they are not billionaires, therefore they can expect no consideration from the current administration.

Bloggers who happen to be billionaires, but still do not charge for their works, will be considered enemy combatants.

Bloggers who do charge for their works, and who are billionaires, are to be called "legitimate journalists" and not bloggers. They will be expected to contribute heavily to the Republicrat or Demolican of their choice.

You know it's true. :)

Re:In the raw

[Anonymous Coward]

Most bloggers engage in naval gazing about how bad their day at the office/university/school etc were. This is why they are not billionaires.

Re:In the raw

[hackstraw]

Most bloggers do not charge for their works, therefore they are not billionaires, therefore they can expect no consideration from the current administration.

Nor do they spread propaganda on behalf of the current administration.

Besides the BS that CBS did with the Bush service record, what mainstream media source has done anything earth shattering since watergate? (And in my ignorance, before?)

Re:In the raw

[jc42]

[W]hat mainstream media source has done anything earth shattering since watergate?

Jon Stewart. ;-)

Of course, he'd just continue to insist that he's not a journalist, he's a commedian. (And he would probably add that the Comedy Channel isn't exactly a "mainstream" news outlet).

But around the time of the 2004 US elections, some of us we did notice the reports that his viewers were the best-informed of people who got their "news" from television. Not that that's anything to especially proud of, I suppose, considering that you can easily match the news in any hour of evening news with 10 minutes at news.google.com. Except maybe for your local crime and/or cute child/pet story.

Re:In the raw

[hackstraw]

some of us we did notice the reports that his (John Stewart) viewers were the best-informed of people who got their "news" from television

I didn't think of him. Yes, he is probably the best source for news that you can get from cable or satellite, but he doesn't rock the boat any more than your average political comedian.

Except maybe for your local crime...

I watch the local "news" about once a year to humor myself. I particularly like the "random killing segment" where they go locally and around the country talking about random deaths. How is that really going to benefit anybody is beyond me, but it must be at least entertaining for the viewers.

Re:In the raw

[Lehk228]

But around the time of the 2004 US elections, some of us we did notice the reports that his viewers were the best-informed of people who got their "news" from television. Not that that's anything to especially proud of, I suppose, considering that you can easily match the news in any hour of evening news with 10 minutes at news.google.com. Except maybe for your local crime and/or cute child/pet story.

is "best informed" defined as most closely folowing the democratic party?

Re:In the raw

[jc42]

is "best informed" defined as most closely folowing the democratic party?

Well, it's not defined that way, but that's semi-true.

The "semi-" is because the people who voted for the various smaller parties generally rated as even better-informed by just about any measure. The Democrats are better-informed only in comparison to Republicans. This is not what I'd call high praise.

Most of these surveys measured informedness by asking people questions about various candidates' policies. Depending on the questions asked, they came up with somewhat different numbers, of course. Mostly, they said that Republicans typically failed to answer any questions correctly around 70% to 80% of the time. Democrats typically got at least some correct answers around the same percentage. But the "third party" voters, regardless of party, typically got 90% or more of their answers right, for all the candidates.

Of course, I suppose one could bias the results by making up loaded questions. But if you look at the actual questions asked by the major pollsters, it's pretty clear that they took a "pox on both your houses" approach. It's not difficult to be equally "biased" against all candidates.

Why should journalists be any different?

[the_real_bto]

Why should "professional" journalists receive special government protection of any kind? The law should protect amateurs and professionals alike. The government has no place deciding which journalists are designated to receive protection under shield laws.

Re:Why should journalists be any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? I'll tell you why! Because any monkey with $200 bux can type up a statment of claim. That is why.

There is already too much strategic litigation. Way too much. For an example look at www.groklaw.net.

IBM may be able to fight back. But what of the little guy?

Suppose someone calls out a fraudster in the middle of trying to pull off a stock swindle? This does happen you know! In fact there is a large percentage of companies on certain exchanges who are basically headed by a swindler.

Publish what you know and you save people millions of dollars and expose yourself to years of litigation. The money the swindler uses is not his own. But you have to spend your own money and you might become destitute in the process. At the end of the day you might win but costs won't even cover what you had to pay your lawyer.

The system is really stacked against the honest person.

At this point I personally know of several law suits that have been launched against a number of people whom I can't mention because I'll get sued if I reveal what I know. Oh - and the company behind this? Publicly traded and anyone who is stupid enough to invest in it should see a psychiatrist. But people don't know. And the law suits are in place so that people can't easily find out. The original investors know - well now they know - and some have lost their homes - others their businesses and yes - they are now the targets of some of these suits. The regulators will do nothing.

IMHO its a form of legalized theft and the way to deal with this is via the net. But if anyone wants to take this on they better have deep pockets and maybe they want to have a degree in law as well because they will spend the rest of their lives in court!

Re:Why should journalists be any different?

[sjames]

The government has no place deciding which journalists are designated to receive protection under shield laws.

Agreed. Otherwise, the de-facto government definition of 'journalist' for the purpose of the shield law will be "anyone who hasn't published anything embarassing about us".

Re:Why should journalists be any different?

[r1_97]

Let anyone disseminating information have shield law protection. Let the libel laws and reputation of the author take care the rest.

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[Greatmoose]

What accountability? Networks and papers run crap all the time that's not correct, and never get called on it. (ie, there's 10,000 dead people in New Orleans; they're eating people in NO, etc...)

Journalism Is as Journalism Does

[Doc Ruby]

What's wrong with defining "journalist" as anyone who publishes, or produces for publication, descriptions of real events derived from multiple corroborated specific sources"? Where "publish" means "offers for distribution to anyone in the public, without restriction beyond small fees", and which is subject to the "fair use" provisions for redistribution, and where "source" means "an identified witness to the events or physical evidence of the events"?

Even though that would leave out much of today's class of "journalists" in the "mainstream media", who are merely PR agents rather than "reporters", who are insiders rather than agents of the public, it still describes exactly those people to whom privileges, such as shielding from prosecution for telling what they know, are crucial. Both for their protection, and for ours: the journalism consumers, the public, which is really shielded, and which has the right to a "press" that is free to inform us. Legitimate politicans and other citizens have those needs, too. What are they afraid of?

Re:Journalism Is as Journalism Does

[raoul666]

What's wrong with defining "journalist" as anyone who publishes, or produces for publication, descriptions of real events derived from multiple corroborated specific sources"?

Well, then bloggers (some of them, anyway) would be journalists, obviously. And that's exactly what these folks don't want.

Bloggers aint journalists

[PincheGab]

Saying bloggers are journalists is like saying self-thought VB "scripters" are programmers...

Specially given that most blogs are set up to elucidate the world on one individual's thinking and opinions, this is by no means journalism.

Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial (except on op-ed pieces), check their sources, check their sources' statements, and to print the truth... It's kind of a stretch to say that the guy setting up a blog explicitly intended to badmouth his employer will follow the same standards.

Bloggers are nothing more than normal, non-professional (in the journalistic sense) people speaking their mind. If they have an episode of brain diarrhea and say somethign they should not, they should get in trouble just like everyone else.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[stanmann]

Saying bloggers are journalists is like saying self-thought VB "scripters" are programmers...

Well, if you mean, that Both statements are true, then I will have to agree, although I'm assuming you mean self-taught VB Programmers do write scripts.

Further, Opinion or "editorial" is exactly what most "Journalism" is. Since dry fact reporting is something that can easily be done by an automated system without human intervention.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[revscat]

Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial (except on op-ed pieces), check their sources, check their sources' statements, and to print the truth... It's kind of a stretch to say that the guy setting up a blog explicitly intended to badmouth his employer will follow the same standards.

This is laughable. I have seen far more critiques of the facts presented by blogs -- and subsequent retractions, addendums, and changes -- than I see in newspapers, newsmagazines, and etc. Far more. Further, blogs themselves have served as fact checking vehicles for the mainstream media, and have frequently done a bang up job at it.

Modern print and broadcast journalism is driven by profit, not facts, not any underlying dedication to the truth. Take away the profit motive, as you do with blogs, and you have more of an incentive to print facts, not less.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[PaxTech]

Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial

What planet are YOU from?? Everyone has biases, and it's absolutely impossible to be completely impartial. Journalists aren't some higher species who can observe without judging, they're people like everyone else, and they all have their own opinions which color their reporting whether they intend it or not.

The only honest path is to admit their inherent biases so that they can be taken into account, not pretend they don't exist. Journalism as a profession is frankly bullshit, journalism is something someone DOES, not something someone IS.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[Greatmoose]

Journalists carry a moral responsability to be impartial (except on op-ed pieces), check their sources, check their sources' statements, and to print the truth That's true, but we've all seen over the past few years how badly this standard has dwindled, to what has become almost "Print whatever you feel like, and if it turns out wrong, we might retract later after everyone has forgotten aboutit." If journalists are to be held to that standard and receive the benefit of BEING a journalist, then the standard has to be enforced. The trick is enforcing it without the government being involved, so as to stave off any notion of preferrential treatment.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[the_real_bto]

Only one thing should determine if someone is a programmer, journalist, cook, landscaper, etc. Whether the person in question can perform the job. Past experience is a far better indicator than any licensing or crap like that.

Think of it this way:
What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer?
His credentials?
His schooling/training?
Or his work?

That is the beauty of freedom in the marketplace or otherwise. Those that can, simply do.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen far more critiques of the facts presented by blogs -- and subsequent retractions, addendums, and changes -- than I see in newspapers, newsmagazines, and etc.

And your point is? Surely this means that most blogs are inherently unreliable, unchecked sounding off boards that then have people complaining just how ill-conceived they are. Wear as traditional media just has to do the fact checking and get it right.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloggers are morons, everything they "blog" is a shitstain from their 13 year old minds.

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[groot]

Given the "definition" above which states which medium is allowed I still do not understand my right or those Others. Am I considered a journalist if get an editorial published in a major newspaper, paid or not? If I reveal information am I protected from not having to reveal my source? If I am "protected" then the only difference is the medium, in which case the law is biased by the medium that I have chosen. If I am not then this law is biased against me by profession, (ie. what I actually do for a living).

Re:Bloggers aint journalists

[sedyn]

What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer?

All of the above, because they all amount to the fact that he's programmed at a competent level.

I think the GP is trying to point out that a blogger -> journalist is like pre-schooler -> graduate student. While I don't fully agree with the point, because it doesn't take into account things like livejournal's ea_spouse, who, if we accept their credentials, is more than qualified to express concerns about EA. The problem is, do we consider their credentials as valid? And I think that is where the issue with the shield law comes into effect.

For example, what if ea_spouse is an articulate 14-year-old gamer that hates EA, or worse yet, is a person in a rival company, or even more damning, a former employee that is just bitter. Then a shit storm around EA has been caused for nothing (potientially causing a loss of business for EA) without any liability.

I wish I could suggest a solution for this situation, but I can't. And I don't trust the government to come up with a good one either.

Press Badges

[chill]

They used to pass out press badges or press cards to members of the press that got them special privs. I remember my dad's let him park in handicapped spots, fire lanes, etc. when covering stories in Chicago, back in the 1970s.

"Member of the Press" meant something. It sounds like that idea isn't going away.

Part of it is going to stem from who gets invites to functions as "members of the press". Can you get into Disney's "Press Days" event? How about an invite from Company X to their press event?

  -Charles

Re:Press Badges

[stanmann]

So you think we should register Presses like we are trying to register guns so that "THE MAN" can take them away?

Registration in order to receive a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right is absurd.

Good riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloggers are the whackers of the journalistic world.

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[stupidfoo]

Katrina was the greatest storm ever! (Even though it was a cat 3 when it hit land and possibly a cat 1 when the levies broke (because of the ground they were built on, not the design))

How about weblogs in Iraq?

[joelsanda]

I hear there's a war over there, to protect personal freedoms and instill democracy. Guess I'll move my blog, err, homepage, from joelsanda.blogspot.com to joelsanda.blogspot.iq.

As Edwin Meese once said....

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

I can't give you a definition of a "journalist" but I know one when I see one!

Re:As Edwin Meese once said....

[grozzie2]

Defining a journalist is simple, go to dictionary.com, and you'll see, its 'one who keeps a journal'. Further refine that, and look at what a 'journal' is, and you'lll see, it's a record of events kept regularily.

The real issue here is, most reporters these days are actually writing editorials, not journals. The difference is, a journalist reports the facts, with no interpretation, an editorial adds interpretation of the facts.

This is the little detail that confuses the entire 'blogsphere'. They dont understand the difference between a journal, and an editorial. They believe they should gain the protections of a journalist, for writing editorials. Even in the mainstream press, all of the larger organizations fully understand the difference. If a paper publishes what they believe to be facts, after properly attempting to validate them as facts, that's journalism, and subject to the protections of a journalist attempting to dilligently report on events. On the other hand, if they publish an editorial, that's an editorial, and the paper can/will be held fully liable for it's implications.

I've never seen a blog that is a 'journal', pretty much all of them are editorials. Like it or not, editorialism is a very powerful media, but, like journalism, with the power comes responsibility. If you are going to publish an 'opinion', you should be prepared to face the consequences. There's a HUGE difference between journalism and editorialism, and the press industry has known understood this difference for a very long time. It's only the bloggers that are confused, they somehow think that editorialism is the same as journalism, and it's not, not even close.

Re:As Edwin Meese once said....

[jhoger]

That's the second definition.

The primary definition is simply "one whose occupation is journalism."

On the same site, journalism is defined quite broadly in a way that would include most every blogger, and certainly DOES NOT exclude "editorialism" (and I don't think it's just missing because editorialism isn't a word). The definition of journalism there is:

      1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
      2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
      3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
      4. Newspapers and magazines.
      5. An academic course training students in journalism.
      6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

A little outmoded since it doesn't consider journalists publishing via the Internet (strange for a dictionary on the web), but I can't see how you wouldn't classify a blogger somewhere in there.

-- John.

Re:As Edwin Meese once said....

[jc42]

I've never seen a blog that is a 'journal', pretty much all of them are editorials.

Sure you have; one is called "slashdot.org". ;-)

Now, granted, there is sometimes a wee bit of editorializing in the articles here, but that's normally a minor aside. The main point here is to journalize (i.e., post in rough time order) events of interest to us geeks.

This, of course, makes it a blog. And as with many blogs, readers can add comments, which is where you get the real editorializing (sometimes interrupted by actual facts).

Actually, if you look at any significant portion of the several million blogs that now exist, you'll find that this isn't all that unusual. It's fairly common for the primary "articles" to be brief, factual reports of events of interest to the blogger. Sometimes they follow this with editorializing, sometimes not. But the format isn't at all unusual. If you haven't seen it, you might try looking at more than a few blogs. Try blogsearch.google.com to locate a lot of them. Right now, the phrase "journalist shield law" gets 958 matches. There's some interesting stuff there.

To put this into perspective, however, the term "kitten" gets 152,555 matches from blogsearch.google.com, and "cute kitten" gets 24,758 matches. So I guess we know what's really important in the blogosphere.

bu-bye tights

[PacketScan]

Well you can kiss your First amendment Good bye.

Re:bu-bye tights

[Jaysyn]

Leave my tights alone!

Jaysyn

easy algorythm for this

[wardk]

this is easy. which bloggers are journalists?

if ( blogger_supports_current_powerbase ) {
    party_on();
} else {
    gitmo_baby();
}

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh - the eating people - that was a blogger.

10000 dead - that was directly quoting the mayor.

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[vandon]

And most journalists aren't responsible to anyone either. The editor just makes sure the story flows and will sell newspapers. Not counting the real hits you get from googling "false AP stories" or looking at http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/06/company_corr ect.html , I run out of fingers and toes counting the number of incorrect stories about tech companies and their products that have run on CNet, ZiffDavis, and other "real" news sites with "real" journalists in the past year.

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[Hrolf]

Mr. Rather? Is that you? How's the effort going to break that story about the fake memos?

Or maybe you're thinking of the famous Walter Duranty and his stories about how Stalin's famines weren't really happening. Accountability didn't mean he couldn't keep his Pulitzer.

Or maybe you're thinking of the recent coverage about Hurricane Katrina where the cable and network news shows went from saying, "The media is back, baby!" to saying "Most of what we told you was wrong," without even a pause for breath.

I'm not real anxious to create any protected class of "journalists" who aren't subject to campaign speech restrictions that affect everyone else. I'd rather we all just had freedom of the press.

What about current ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

My concern is more towards the protections of current journalists.

I mean, if Robert Novak can get away with revealing state secrets (isn't that treason?) I don't think that they just get protection as far as "freedom of speech" goes.

I don't give a fuck who authorized it btw. If it was to be told to the public then it should have been done so with official channels. Not just some shady figure who we have on blind faith has the authority. I don't fully understand how he has got away without any punishment (unless he has been punished, which is possible)

Who gives a rats ass about what apple is doing next quarter compared to the security of the free world.

Easy

[Gyga]

Journalist = someone reporting the news or a message. News = Anything someone (no matter how significant) may want to know (which includes personal and business bloggers) Now what do I complain about with this out of the way.

We already have a Shield Law

[TopSpin]

But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?

A constitution should be short and obscure. - Napoleon

Such definitions are not provided. In an ideal world you elect representatives with sufficient honor to not require precise definitions.

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.

Given no clear means of delineating who is or is not covered by the above, I claim everyone belongs. That includes reporters that quote anonymous sources, rich interests that want to run campaign adds and bloggers that want to disseminate their stuff. What is a 'blog' if not a peaceable assembly?

Why do we need a definition, or a 'shield' law? On one hand we want to hang a politician for his press leaks and on the other hand we don't want people thrown under a bus for information. If Rove walks because the DOJ can't compel some 'journalist' to give up names then so be it. Stop throwing reporters in jail.

Liberals take care; most of whatever stretching you do to the word 'press' to get your way is probably also applicable to 'militia'.

What Kind Of Free?

[B11]

The government (and the mega-corporations that lie in bed with government) have a conflict-of-interest here and sometimes with try and subvert the "freedom" of the press.

Free press is not free-as-in-beer, so a journalist may end up having to pay dearly for this freedom, such as jail (or in some cases in some countries) worse.

I define a journalist as someone who serves the public interest and is willing to take risks to do so. I don't think a lot bloggers fit the bill (although there are some that certainly do).

Simple answer

[killkillkill]

'Journalist' are all those who expresss an opinion that I agree with

Re:Simple answer

[grozzie2]

Therein shows how you misunderstand the concept. A journalist reports facts. Sometimes in the case of events, it's hard to validate all the facts, but a journalist makes a bona fide attempt to validate them. As soon as 'opinion' gets into the mix, it's not journalism, it's editorialism. Most of the 'blogsphere' is totally ignorant of this difference, and somehow think that thier editorialism should be protected as 'freedom of speech'. Ask any major newspaper about it, they are 'free' to publish any editorial they want, but, they are also free to accept the consequences of those editorials. A journalist reporting facts will not be subject to slander suits, an editorial publishing opinion will as one example.

In the case you describe, somebody reporting an 'opinion' you agree with, is by definition not a journalist. There are more examples, take for example the 'embedded' folks overseas. Although they may be attempting to report facts, there is editorial content imposed (censorship). By definition, this is not journalism, it's editorials. This goes to the heart of freedom and journalism. A press that is not free to report facts, is not a free press. The laws regarding freedom of the press, and protection of journalism, apply to just that, journalism, reporting of facts. They have NOTHING to do with editorials, where opinion is overlaid (and sometimes disguised as) the facts.

There's not a lot of blogs out there that practise journalism, but, quite a significant number chock full of many opinionated editorials. By definition, they do not deserve any of the protections of 'freedom of the press', there's not a fact to be found in most of them. Hell, most of them wouldn't know a fact if it was staring them in the face.

Re:Simple answer

[Khashishi]

do you know what satire means?

Journalists aren't journalists either....

[isotope23]

At least from the megacorp news networks. A perfect example was the last presidential campaign. Regardless of your political bent, nader was the only "approved" protest candidate.

I find it highly suspect that the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot in
49 states to nader's 38, yet there was almost no coverage. Especially when
both he and the green party candidate got arrested trying to attend the presidential debates.

50 years ago it would have been a major media news item when a presidential candidate on the ballot in 49 states got arrested.

So yeah I'd say the corporate hacks are not journalists either...

Re:Journalists aren't journalists either....

[the_real_bto]

This is offtopic, but it is also worth noting that the debate itself is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans.

"In 1987 the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was formed - a private entity run by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties."

http://www.debatethis.org/

Re:Journalists aren't journalists either....

[jkbull]

50 years ago it would have been a major media news item when a presidential candidate on the ballot in 49 states got arrested.

50 years ago it would have been major news that we had 49 states!

(Alaska became the 49th state on January 3, 1959, according to http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/BARTLETT/49state.h tml)

What Makes a Journalist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Found this under Journalist in Wikipedia referring to bloggers being journalists. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/journalist .html

What the hell happened

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

to the Republican party?

There was a time when I wasn't ashamed to be associated with them, now it seems they are trying to out-do the kooky left for crown title of loony-bin material.

Free speech indeed...

Commercial Business not journalism?

[Overzeetop]

Ahem, earth to Sen. Luger: Nearly all journalists work for corporations, whose primary motivation is profit. They're all businesses.

It appears that if you blog and want to get away with it, you will ned to establish that you are a periodical publishing online. Since periodical is not defined, it may be an irregular periodical, or perhaps they will require Slate or ArsTechica status. Hard to tell. Based on the corporate interests lined up against such a "free speech" law, you should expect some very narrow language in the several-hundred page final draft. It will likely be sandwiched between amandments on prayer in schools and pork funding for some bumfark-nowhere bridge project.

Re:Commercial Business not journalism?

[zotz]

"Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?"

Dude, U meen thet sooper stealth m0de sprey we bought aint workin no mo?

all the best,

drew

Almost unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

As a many times published author, I might manage to drum up a way to qualify as a journalist, but this proposed law is sick, giving dubious immunities to some people who report the news and none to others who may, in many cases, be doing a better job.

I also suspect that it treads very close to being unconstitutional. If we can't be accused of some crime before 12 jurors by an elected prosecutor without having a chance to face our accusers, then what right has an unelected and highly unrepresentative group of vigilanties (aka journalists) have to accuse us of that same crime before millions of people, while refusing to divulge their source. Jury trials can end in acquittal. Media accusations, however dubious, never go away. And given prior media behavior, i.e. Rathergate, their motive is rather obvious. Dubious and doubtful sources have to be concealed lest we discover how weak they are.

By the way, if you're following the debate over who manages the Internet, the US or the UN/EU/China/Iran, the former Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, has an article supporting the US position, "Keep the Internet Free." The EU, it seems, is running with some very nasty company.

Here's a quote:

On the one side is the United States, which wants to retain supervision of the Internet and has managed to get the reluctant support of most of the global Internet community, which sees America as the least bad of the possible ultimate guardians of the system.

On the other side is a collection of states keen on getting as much as control as possible in order to curtail the Internet's power to undermine their regimes. With the theocracy of Iran as the standard-bearer, this group brings together Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Venezuela. North Korea is probably keen to join in as well.

The European Union seems to be in the middle, wavering back and forth - and in its wavering it has recently come down with a position that has brought it enthusiastic applause from Tehran, Beijing and Havana.

--Mike Perry, Seattle, Author: Untangling Tolkien

Special Privileges

[rlp]

So all people are equal, but Journalists will be more equal than others. I am disturbed by the idea of granting special legal priveleges to one particular profession (unless the profession was programmers - that'd be cool!).

Re:Special Privileges

[idobi]

Priests, Doctors and Lawyers have special privileges that are reserved for their profession.

Re:Special Privileges

[orac2]

Granting privileges to members of the press is nothing new. The press has had special privileges since practically day one in the US, and these privileges were established in the constitution. The 1st amendement reads (emphasis added):

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.

Why does the press get special privileges? Because it was considered that a free press is a vital element of a democracy, unlike any other industry.

Re:Special Privileges

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctors and Lawyers are hevily regulated by the state. If they don't toe the line the quasi-government organization wants them to toe they lose the ability to earn a living.

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from regulating the press in such a way. Therefore, they should not receive special rights.
No speceil responsibility. No special rights.

This is merely an attempt from the press to put themselves above the law.

Arbitrary

[jhoger]

How about the "Pants Test." If an article was not written while wearing pants (pajama bottoms don't count), then you don't get protection under the shield law.

Really though, I think the Congress should just word it broadly and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone was primarily acting as a journalist or not. As you say, there's really no good way to decide whether someone is acting as a journalist or just going through the motions to allow themselves to hide sources of information. There can be no bright-line test.

-- John.

Re:Arbitrary

[orac2]

I think the Congress should just word it broadly and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis

Now that's a reasonable suggestion! Unfortunately, I suspect it'll be lost amongst the Slashnoise...

Re:Arbitrary

[blueskies]

Really though, I think the Congress should just word it broadly and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone was primarily acting as a journalist or not.

So you don't mind companies sending Cease and Desist letters to whomever they want to and letting the courts decide who actually has to follow them? Or sending DMCA take down notices...

Letting the courts decide just means the people with the money to spend on lawyers be able to beat the people unwilling to spend large amounts of money defending themselves.

Re:Arbitrary

[jhoger]

Anyone can send you a letter, and anyone can sue you at any time. Nothing in this law will change that. Also, people that sue you usually do it because they expect to win.

What I'm suggesting is that a court can make the best determination of whether you are acting primarily as a journalist and so the bar should be raised as to whether you must divulge a source. If you are acting as a journalist, you wouldn't have much to worry about. The alternative of only protecting people who journalize while wearing pants is much less attractive alternative. Face it... the Congress is NOT going grant to give immunity to everyone who wants it from divulging sources. The standard is going to be much higher than whether the person rigged up a blog to spew their libels.

Anyway, what do cease & desist, DMCA etc have to do with a shield law? You are always liable for your actions, shield law or not, including many cases where there is no specific law to fit your action, including the broad concept of "negligence."

How would you define 'journalist' in a narrow enough way that you capture serious bloggers versus interlopers?

-- John.

Re:Arbitrary

[Qzukk]

Personally, I think we're trying to define the wrong thing here. Journalism already has a perfectly good definition that's been pasted into slashdot several times by other people now.

Instead, let's define news. Perhaps shield laws should protect those who report news regardless of whether they are a blogger or a journalist or some crazy guy who stands on the street corner handing out flyers.

Re:Arbitrary

[jhoger]

I think it is quite reasonable to want to protect derivative sources of information. Just because someone is interpreting news should not exclude them from a potential shield law. What should exclude them, plain and simple is pretending to be a journalist. That's why I say leave it to the courts and juries who can better decide an individual's intent than Congress can a priori.

The larger point is that this should be egalitarian. Wearing pants, or writing your stories from a cube farm instead of your home office should make absolutely no difference. There should be no special protections for someone doing something professionally in the private sector versus as a private citizen. In fact, if anything I'd expect more protections as a private citizen since the stakes are so much higher, my work is not vetted by others, and others in the society really ought to be taking what a blogger says with several inch sized cubes of salt anyway...

-- John.

Re:Arbitrary

[orac2]

Instead, let's define news.

This is an interesting approach, and could be a much more useful line of thought than trying to define journalist. My biggest problem with automatically recognizing a blogger as a member of the fourth estate is that in many cases they're either simply reposting or editorializing on content originated by others, or generating content that has no reasonable public interest, i.e. your friends may care about what Mitsy the Kitten did yesterday, or your bizzare theory involving tinfoil and the Ford Company, but no-one else will.

It seems to me that original (but not neccesarily unique) research and reporting is one of the hallmarks of a journalist, and so maybe reflecting this in a definition of news, say "Original information of public interest" may help us get closer to the mark of seperating those who need (and deserve) shield law privileges from those who don't.

Re:Arbitrary

[orac2]

But if all you're doing is intepreting news then you don't have any sources to protect! If you don't have any private sources, you don't need shield law privileges. Barring established limitations on free speech (libel, inciting violence, etc) you're already covered under the free speech provision of the constitution.

There should be no special protections for someone doing something professionally in the private sector

As I noted elsewhere, members of the press have had legal privileges since the first amendment (with its specific inclusion of the press) was adopted, because of the press's believed unique contribution to maintaining a free society. If you don't like the idea of journalists getting special treatment, I suggest you start gathering those petition signatures to repeal the 1st amendment :)

Re:Arbitrary

[Qzukk]

Simply saying "research and reporting" isn't quite enough, there should be logical and very simple standards. Should anonymous sources be protected if they are lying? For example Wen Ho Lee, who was arrested due to an article written in the New York Times based on information given by an anonymous informant, only to find out that nothing had even happened... are lies "news" (hm, what about reporting about lies)? Or on a less tinfoil-hat conspirational note, I'm sure that tabloid staff members put a lot of research into "Woman gives birth to baby boy with face of Jesus tattoed on his back and who can fart Ave Maria", but is that "news"?

Re:Arbitrary

[jhoger]

You misunderstand me... I'm not saying journalists shouldn't get special treatment. They do and they should.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't take a degree or a particular employer, or pants to magically transform you into a journalist. A journalist is someone who practices journalism.

That transformation from regular citizen to journalist happens when you excercise your free speech right to purvey information to the general public via any broadcast medium, like TV, radio, newspaper, and certainly the web. In performing a journalist act you deserve any and every protection any other member of the press gets covering you in that action of free speech. Any information you gather from sources related to the act of journalism should be protected if the primary intent of gathering that information was to disseminate it to the general public via some broadcast medium. There's a a rough definition, turned into legalese it would probably be good enough for the courts, and totally unrestrictive.

There are plenty of employed people who call themselves journalists who are not (most of the talking heads and hair+teeth folks on television count here). There are a whole lot more regular citizens who don't practice journalism often enough to care one way or another. But leave it to the courts to decide who is in which camp and when, not in a strict a priori legal definition by congress.

-- John.

What makes a journalist

[Maxo-Texas]

I think some bloggers should qualify.
I think time should be a factor.
I think the number of articles you publish should be a factor.
I think that your publication is always available to read by the public should be a factor.

----
So I would call person who regularly writes articles for public consumption and who has been doing so for at least a few months a journalist.

I would also say that anyone who started to write for an organization composed of qualified journalists could gain that status faster.

Re:What makes a journalist

[bluGill]

So if I write one story I'm not a journalist? I have a day job, not at a newspaper. I took English in high school, and we covered how to write newspaper stories, and I even did one. (A stupid one that wasn't worth publishing, but it was a valid news paper story, and thus good enough to get me a good grade in class) Sure you can get higher education in journalism and learn things I don't know, but not a whole lot that I can't figure out on my own.

I could see myself writing a story sometime if no reporter was covering it, and it was interesting. Newspapers are always looking for stories to publish, particularly when it is a well written story that they can publish without paying the costs of a reporter. (there are legal issues here, but if I'm interested in the topic I might write something for free)

According to your definition I am not a journalist. Is that what you really want to say?

Lets change this: I'm a reporter working for a tiny weekly newspaper (circulation about 1000), my first story is embarrassing to the mayor. Are my sources not protected because this is my first story?

Lets change this a little, say I'm assigned a story to investigate the mayor's sex life as a first story. After interviewing some of the people he slept with I get uncomfortable with the whole business and resign without publishing anything. Are my sources, who spoke to me only because they thought I was a journalist not protected because I never published.

Re:What makes a journalist

[Maxo-Texas]

If you build a chair, are you a furniture maker?
If you put a board over a stream, are you a civil engineer?
If you type a few pages that no one will publish, are you a writer?
If you are a drop of rain, are you a storm?

We usually gain status and credibility in life through sustained effort.

Part of the reason we trust your embarrassing news about the mayor is that you have credibility.

Should people revealing stories about the mayor's sex life to any random person who comes up to them and claims to be a journalist expect protection?

If people reveal confidential information, are they protected if you publish the information for the public to read instead of keeping it private?

---

An interesting question would be: If the National Enquirer (with no real credibility) were to leak government secrets- would they qualify as journalists to get the protection for themselves and their sources?

---
What are we trying to accomplish here? One major thing that we are trying to prevent is government secrecy from hiding corruption. So perhaps sources should only be protected if illegal activity and corruption is revealed through their leak.

Re:What makes a journalist

[Sahib!]

An interesting question would be: If the National Enquirer (with no real credibility) were to leak government secrets- would they qualify as journalists to get the protection for themselves and their sources?

What a horrible question. For one, The National Enquirer is not as incredible as you make it out to be: "Details of the Monica Lewinsky affair would normally have been untouched by the mainstream press, had the details not been already made public knowledge by the Enquirer." For another, I think you're misconstruing the scope of the First Amendment; the dissemination of government secrets doesn't qualify for its protections.

Re:What makes a journalist

[Maxo-Texas]

Wow-- that is a killer reference! One point for you!

Simple Deduction

[Moth7]

• Back before everyone and their 13 year old sister had a blog, they were generally known as 'Journals'.
• Where is the word Journalist derived from? One who keeps a journal.
• Do bloggers keep journals? Yes

=> Bloggers are Journalists

Free Speech

[nurb432]

Cant have those pesky citizens running around speaking their mind. Nope cant have that.

But we can allow the 'journalists' that have been bought and paid for by the parties. Yep, its ok to let them talk.

What another f-ing scam.

Just Remember...

[Shadow Wrought]

And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh

Any day you get to correctly use "fucktard" in a sentence, be it with the family, at work, or on slashdot, is a good, good day.

This continues to boggle me

[griffjon]

OK, people. This is pure batshit insanity all around.

first, just because it's a blog doesn't mean the blogger is a journalist, half of these are purely personal journal sites that are now called blogs because that's the "in" term to refer to often updated things. Any law that presumes that something posted is (or isn't) journalism is silly.

Further, free speech should be strongly maintained for "bloggers", for just that reason -- whether they're journalists, personal diarists or political activists, a law applied to "blogs" will hamper all of them.

Should PACs and campaigns be able to abuse blogs? No. Will they try? Yes. The problem then is controlling blogs (and websites, etc.) being used not just to express political opinion, but being paid for by politicians or interest groups to do so. Hell, it seems to me like a good policy to extend the requirement of "paid for by the blah campaign"
  requirement to everything -- if you're getting paid by a campaign or PAC to produce media, you have to disclaim it loudly, period.

Am I missing something?

Why should responsabilities be any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well here's the question to your "implicit" right. Are all you "journalist" willing to accept the "responsabilities" that go along with that "right"? If not, then why should you be considered "journalists"?

But AC's shield their sources!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but we guard our anonymous sources better!

Re:But AC's shield their sources!

[stanmann]

You are welcome to think so.

Journalist/Reporter

[nurb432]

I think you have the 2 confused.

Reporters have an obligation to be impartial, report the facts only, etc.

Journalists have no such obligation. ( Though they should be honest when they are winging it, and let you know ). They get to inteject their own agenda into the 'facts'.

But they still should be protected, even when they are annoying, or just plain wrong.

I don't get it

[databank]

Why shouldn't bloggers be protected like other journalists? Since there's no concrete definition of journalism (and yes since websters has two separate definitions, bloggers most definately can fall under the "someone who keeps a journal".)

In my opinion, if some whack wants to distribute pamphlets saying that the government has some sort of secret conspiracy, he has every right to do so.

I, in turn, have every right to avoid him and not listen to any crap he has to say.

Conversely any website that I might go to may have false information on it. But again, I take everything with a grain of salt. After all, EVERYONE has some agenda. (Oh wait, that's just my opinion...but aren't you glad you're entitled to your own?)

Not so simple...

[CynicalGuy]

So if I work for some company, is it ok for me to post their trade secrets on my blog, and then hide behind the first amendment when they try to sue me? "Hey man, sorry about that, freedom of speech nullifies those nondisclosure agreements I signed when you hired me. I'm a journalist after all."

It's not so simple.

Re:Not so simple...

[Moth7]

And how's that different from you being paid to write an article which reveals trade secrets? If an offence is committed, it shouldn't matter whether you were given money to break the law.

Re:Not so simple...

[stanmann]

The first ammendment protects the publication, NOT the publisher. Slander, Libel, Trade secret infringement, etc can all go against publishers, authors, or reporters of the information, but once the information is published it is protected. You can be punished after the fact for publication, but you cannot be prohibited from publishing.

Are "journalists" mentioned in the Constitution?

[stankulp]

The First Amendment only applies to "journalists?"

How convenient.

Now SeeBS, NBC, ABC and CNN can go back to manufacturing memos to use against enemy politicians and broadcasting sensational lies when natural disasters occur.

Thank God we can all get back to normal.

But what does the public think of blogs?

[Iriel]

Yes, blogs are out there, and possibly even revealing all the corruption in current politics. However, the problem that blogs face (right now) as a credible news source is the same kind of problem that video games face. The majority thinks that both subjects are just something for kids. This is why a lot of blogs aren't taken seriously (even the few that possibly should), and this is the same reason M rated games are being torn apart in the media as 'bad for children'.

Until the public can realize that some (I know there's a lot of garbage out there, but bear with me) bloggers are actually serious about reporting news and telling people what it actually means to them, then people will continue to look at blogs as unreliable because it's just a 'kid thing'. If we can get a website actually known that's devoted to listing real news reporting blogs, internet journalists aren't going to make a real dent in the grand scheme of journalism. Maybe on the local level, but not enough to get the same kind of protection the networks will get.

That's just my opinion though. If you'd like to 'correct' me, please don't use a torch to do it.

my 2 cents

[yup2000]

If a Journalist can write it, then why can't I? As an American we all have the right of free speech.

Re:my 2 cents

[X-rated Ouroboros]

As an American we all have the right of free speech.

As men (and women) we all have the Right of free speech. Being American has nothing to do with it, since the US Government is not the source of Rights... it is merely something create by The People and granted limited authority to ensure the Rights of The People are protected.

In theory, anyway. A couple hundred years of graft and corruption have modified the practice slightly.

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[Tim C]

I don't understand. The bill covers "any entity that disseminates information by... electronic, or other means and that publishes a... periodical in print or electronic form"

An entity is something that has its own independent existence. That covers people as well as companies, and would certainly cover even a loosely organised group of people. An electronically published periodical would seem to me to include a blog, as well as news sites and other more traditional information sources.

Unless the terms have some specific legal meaning that I'm unaware of, what exactly is the problem?

Defining Jorunalism

[BoldAndBusted]

OK, try this:

A "journalist", literally, would be someone who is for or contributes to, a "journal". What is a blog but a person's journal?

OK, that might not be a great basis for argument. How about this - in many eras, there have been tiny or one-person magazines published. In the 80's and 90's, that was known as the 'zine movement. These folks, on average, often had circulations in the hundreds (if not dozens ;) ). Yet, many of these people were definitely journalists. A blogger, writing about the same subjects as their 'zine forebears, could have a readership in the thousands, or millions, purely due to the increased coverage of the technology. Were 'zine authors not "writers" or "journalists", just because they had small circulation publications?

This law, and others like it, fly in the face of the guarantees of the Constitution, especially the protection of rights codified in the 9th and 10th amendments.

This just in from sanityville

[tod_miller]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Newspapers printed on recycled paper are going to be given 100% immunity from all legal implications of their actions, because a new buzz word was invented to describe newspapers printed on recycled paper, and thus it was granted a special case.

Are all drivers formula one drivers, and are all cyclists bike couriers? Are all bloggers even news reporters? If you are a blogger, are you implying your opinion is more reliable and thus should be protected? The very fact that this is now an issue implies no protection for any non 'blogging' free speech. Can anyone else see how ludicrous this is.

'Web Log' is a description of a TYPE of content on the web that forms a log. Today it is used to describe a TECHNOLOGY more than anything, and 'log' type website spring up where log type websites shouldn't (and break all kinds of usability).

*IF* you want to say the 'shield law' covers everyone, then it would cover people writing for content that may be described as 'log' content.

Somehow implying that the 'log' element of writing should garner the user 'protection' is not just stupid, but twatish.

This is precisely the reason why I hate such words. Instead of people just writing, and doing what they do, this swallows it all up, puts a label on it, and then people confuse it with other words. Blogging isn't journalism - and 99.999% of bloggers are dumb shit morons (ok this bit is flame, and proudly so) who think what they are doing is somehow important - not because they are simply writing - but because they are 'blogging' that is writing in the form of a log.

How bloody preposterous. This tries to steal all ownership of the brilliance of the web and place it into people who want to orgasm over buzz words - and think that blogging is so amazing, and this in turn forces the hand of the news channels who start 'talking about this amazing trend'.

I am just so frustrated by this. It is pathetic, and the very nature of the twisted logic ('blogging gets you fired', 'blogging does this', 'blogging does that') threatens real world freedoms by clouding up issues.

The question is, are people protected in their speech, and clouding the issue with the voice of dumb-shit squalid-filth-spewing elitist academic rejects who pose under the banner of buzz word # 8763 (blogging) is a threat to the reasoning that needs to be in place to balance between upholding accountability and protecting freedom of speech.

A 'voice' in any medium can be attacked, be it me shouting drunken insults at the best man at someone's wedding, or publishing divorce rumors for a celeb couple in a pre-menopausal women's magazine. Society needs to agree how to balance this freedom of peoples speech, yet protect NEWS reporters, peoples who duty and role in society is should be to investigate, expose, clarify and enlighten everyone in their work, from being silenced through fear of financial loss and other harm.

Saying what you want, and then blaming it on 'blogging' a word that any self described 'blogger' cannot even define (hint google 'define:blogging' will probably not get it 100% right in this sham of a world) , will damage real freedoms because for every perceived leak or grey area extra shoring needs to be added to ensure an accepted balance is in play.

Break the law by breaking a non-disclosure contract? Don't sue me, it was a blog! a blog I tell you! You know, as opposed to any other form of digital storage, like a word document...

If I ever see 'blogging' or any other crap being given special case attention in a law or movement of thinking being catered to bloggers, I will picture myself with a large gun killing the people who are grinning at this self glorification, possibly shooting them in the stomach, before I breath slowly, calm down, and go back to my work.

Damn I hate bloggers because of this.

please type the word in this image: catered

random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

What I wanna know is ...

[jc42]

'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists?'

How the hell do you parse that? And I wonder about the native language of whoever wrote that sentence. Anyway, I can see several possible parsings, none of which are really "native" English, and which have rather different meanings.

Maybe it needs a few commas, semicolons, parens, or something.

(For example why would we not consider them real journalists here, but consider them real journalists somewhere else? And is it the commercial business who are the real journalists, or are the bloggers considered commercial businesses? Lots of good questions buried in there ;-)

Bloggers are NOT journalists.

[drewxhawaii]

For the most part, bloggers are people who merely react to things in the news.
Journalists are the ones who provide the news. In my opinion, as a general term, bloggers are NOT journalists.

Re:Bloggers are NOT journalists.

[popo]

"bloggers are people who merely react to things in the news"

And so are Columnists and Op/Ed writers. Should their speech be restricted because they don't "provide the news"?

Your definition is even more dangerous because it prevents opinions from being shared.

Re:Bloggers are NOT journalists.

[drewxhawaii]

I'm not saying bloggers shouldn't be protected, they should.
I am saying that bloggers do not qualify as journalists.
The Shield Law protects "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service."
I think this clearly shows that bloggers deserve to be covered, but let's not call them journalists...

Re:Bloggers are NOT journalists.

[drewxhawaii]

I never said bloggers shouldn't be protected, I simply said they do not qualify as journalists.

Re:Bloggers are NOT journalists.

[astrodud]

That is absolutely not true. If you think it is, you are reading the wrong bloggers. These days, to me it seems that most of the "mainstream media" news gets their news from bloggers who do real investigative reporting. Mainstream journalists don't do real investigating anymore.

Re:Bloggers are NOT journalists.

[Kelson]

Op/Ed generally deals with information that is already available, and is therefore less likely to run into confidentiality problems.

Remember, the issue isn't that speech is restricted for non-journalists -- everyone has free speech, regardless of that status -- the issue is that "journalists" are traditionally granted additional privileges of confidentiality.

In other words, if you make a distinction between bloggers and journalists, either could do an expose on something, but if someone subpoenas the writer to find out who revealed the information, a journalist has a better chance of fighting the subpoena than a blogger.

This /.response is an article. I am a journalist.

[popo]

What you are reading now, is an "article" written by me.

This little comment on /. is just one of my "articles".
I write "articles" in a similar format several times a week
on Slashdot.

Therefore I am a prolific journalist, as is everyone else who
posts here regularly. ... or are we going to define "articles" next?

Funny

[Billly Gates]

I thought the freedom of speech guaranteed to all Americans under the constition was for everyone and not just journalists.

Is it really a crime to say something? What if the president did something or said something that he is embarrased of? Could he declare it "secretative" and punish those who talk about it?

I am agaisnt people releasing secrets that the general population should not know for our security, but government officials should have provided the proper safe guards to prevent the leak in the first place. Not prosecute a citizen for disclosing something that they should have not heard or seen.

that you here??

[Anonymous Coward]

'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?'

What is that supposed to mean anyway? I guess you have to be confusing to become senator.

So what's new here?

[jc42]

There's long been a saying that freedom of the press applies only to those with the money to own and operate a press.

One interesting about the Internet is that you no longer have to be rich to "publish". Anyone can now act as a journalist without first having the price of entry (or being hired by someone with the price of entry) to the tradition printed press or radio or television. Those kept out the riff-raff by requiring printing or broadcast equipment that most of us couldn't afford.

This bill is really just an attempt to maintain this tradition of press freedom belonging only to the wealthy and to corporations.

So it's not really abridging any freedoms that most of us ever had. It's merely reacting to the internet giving this freedom to the masses, which was never the case in the past.

Re:So what's new here?

[SpaceLifeForm]

You really shouldn't look at it that way. You do have the freedom to publish, it's just that now you have additional, affordable tools (computers and the Internet). The proposed bill is just an attempt to take away your rights because the darkside is scared of the power of the masses to take away their power.

Re:So what's new here?

[hitmark]

hmm, somehow that makes the think of riaa/mpaa and drm...
i wonder why...

Re:So what's new here?

[grahammm]

Is it really a tradition that freedom of the press only applies to the wealthy corporations? Going back to the days when the first amendment was drafted, was the "press" then more likely to be a local 'mom and pop' operation than a large conglomerate. So, I believe that blogging, posting web pages, etc is more the modern equivalent of the 'press' at the time than are the modern media conglomerates.

Re:So what's new here?

[quarkscat]

Senator Lugar is only one among many politicians (eg. Senator Hatch) that I label as neo(Con)artists". While they proclaim to be conservatives, they are in fact shills for their corporate masters. Nothing more. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights never defined the term journalist, or press, or for that matter, militia. What these founding documents did establish was that the Federal government has limited powers versus those of the States, and that all powers not freely granted to those entities properly belong to the governed people themselves.

A basic problem with representative democracy is the continually chipping away at the rights of the governed people in favor of the State. Those politicians that proport to represent "we the people" in actuality represent those that pay them the most, which are the corporations. They confuse the broad rights of corporations as entities from whom all of the State's rights are derived, rather than "we the people". Until such time as these (largely self-serving) politicians are dissuaded from their mistaken beliefs, the State will continue increase in its power over "we the people" in support of their corporate masters.

Voting is a vital exercise of the rights of the governed. That power has been subborned by such actions as untraceable electronic voting machines, which puts increasing power in the hands of a few corporations. It has also been corrupted by the corporate entities that largely control the "free press" in this country. Control the flow of information to the governed, and you can control the governed. Unfortunately, the press has increasingly made use of the innate patriotism of "we the people" though what used to be referred to as "yellow journalism" or "jingoism". A State at war has a far easier time convincing the governed peoples that sacrifice of some of their rights is necessary.

This legislation is just one more attempt to chip away at the rights of the governed, and increase the power of the State, and their corporate masters.

Journalist is easy

[sane?]

The more interesting question is how you differentiate between a 'politician' and a self-serving, amoral, opportunistic sleaze.

Journalists are those that investigate and report events in the public good, paid or unpaid.

Not a troll/flame but *$&*$&* off drew

[tod_miller]

(in case you think this is offensive, a flame or troll, make sure you read to the end)

Whine whine 'no definition of journalism' whine whine. Damnit.

Don't you see there is no definition of blogging you utter retard. You self righteous technologically stunted person you. Why, if you think 'paid and possibly respected journalists who have to content with something called reputation, hence the word reputable, in the phrase reputable source' shouldn't be placed over your wonderful simple life of write-what-I-want, or more accurately:

hit 'blog this' button and write the first thing that comes to my head, with aid of wikipedia, and link shit to every other page that comes from the google top 100.

Why if you think that, do you not think that NORMAL writing shouldn't be the same of writing that tries to be in the vein of a 'log' system.

Do you think that writing content without navigation or context, categories, real accountability, ordered by time descending somehow gives you a legal waiver in what you write?

Well here goes:

00:35 13/10/2005 : Drew is a gay man who likes to have gay sex with animals
13:56 12/10/2005 : Today I ate Ice Cream! Yippeee! read Penny Arcade.

Now, if you want to somehow sue me, or get my source, or somehow circumvent protections designs to allow credible, reputable (i.e. with a reputation, a license if you will) journalists, you can't why? Because my comment above isn't an ordinary comment, it is a blog comment!

That is the magic of blogs - entries, without navigation, in reverse chronological order.

b>Why should entries, without navigation, in reverse chronological order, be treated special? Tell, me damn it, maybe if you cannot find a reason, I will not have to loose it every time I see such stupid stories.

ok.

A Question Regarding Commentators

[quantax]

I was just wondering as the article wasnt clear on this (and indeed, perhaps this is a part of the very issue at stake), are commentators considered journalists? Commentators include Rush Limbaught, Al Franken, Rhandi Rhodes, Sean Hannity, and so on. These people usually are re-diseminating already released news and offering their own opinions on it. A majority of bloggers pretty much fall into this catagory; they are merely commenting on existing news with varying degrees of intelligence. The line starts blurring when bloggers are able to discover a story (Rathergate, and so on), and produce original research & material before other media outlets. So where do the commentators stand in this and where do bloggers stand in relation to them? What about Drudge, is he a journalist? There are plenty of time's hes disseminated atleast partially false information in order to be the first to break it. I fully support a blogger press since it lacks many of the external pressures (so far anyway) that make the mainstream media less likely to dig in particularly political areas in relation to their job security. Thus stories can be broken that would otherwise go unnoticed; by the same token, there is a burden of responsibility on journalists that shouldnt let them squander rights. I do not see that burden in most bloggers as most bloggers are overtly political & partisan, almost painfully so at times. As one poster, whos a journalist said, in this regard I'll perhaps be satisfied if a blogger is willing to goto jail to stand up for this right. Otherwise, it seems unearned. Then again, it seems sad & dangerous to have to go that far to earn a civil right... I welcome any insights.

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[Oligonicella]

"Why am I not surprised?"

Why do you jump the gun? Reread the first portion which defines those covered.

Coverage from that portion:

Journalist: - print, broadcast; enough to qualify

Blogger: - photographic, electronic: enough to qualify

Rush Limbaugh: - broadcast, ... satellite,: enough to qualify


Oh, yeah. "And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience." Seems you are as guilty as those in government whom you accuse.

An Attack, Not A Defense

[John Hasler]

> But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?

Any law which defines "journalist" is an attack on the First Amendment.

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[Anonymous Coward]

I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience.

Not a suprising view for someone associated with Air America . You want protection for what most people would call hate speech. How many times did Randy call for someone to shoot the president? Air America is not only physically bankrupt, its morally bankrupt as well. Too bad really, America needs to hear opposing viewpoints. What they don't need to hear are half-truths and hatefull innuendos.

Cheers

Merriam-Webster Definition

[yoey]

Main Entry: journalist

Pronunciation: -n&l-ist

Function: noun

1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

2 : a person who keeps a journal

I know...

[wbradney]

...let's define 'journalist' as anyone who registers with the government and receives a 'licence to journalistify'. We can give them a little card, stamp the backs of their heads with a barcode and put RFID chips in their skulls, then let them 'free press' away to their hearts' content. Of course, if they do something we don't like...

Dan Rather commented on this 2 weeks ago

[Jameson Burt]

In an hour long interview 2 weeks ago at National Press Club here
in Washington DC,
Dan Rather responded several times concerning bloggers as journalists.
Dan said you are not a journalist if you blog anonymously.
You are not a journalist if you ignore discordant views, seeking only to
grind in favor of your own predetermined conclusions.

Then Dan said he is old (70), and blogging is new,
so he couldn't say much besides who wouldn't be a journalist.
He mentioned that when he started journalism 50 years ago,
everyone called himself a reporter, except a few with canes (very old reporters).

Re:Dan Rather commented on this 2 weeks ago

[Steve B]

Dan Rather responded several times concerning bloggers as journalists.
Dan said you are not a journalist if you blog anonymously.
You are not a journalist if you ignore discordant views, seeking only to grind in favor of your own predetermined conclusions.

You are, however, a journalist if you support your predetermined conclusions with forged documents so blatant that citing them is comparable to trying to pass off clips of Plan Nine From Outer Space as genuine UFO photos.

They are afraid of this:

[Anonymous Coward]

An anonymous source today said that 'Doc Ruby [explitive deleted] my cat and stole my credit card!' The source continues that he fears reprisal should he contact the police, but uges all readers to 'Throw rocks at the [explitive deleted] for [explitive deleted] cat [explitive deleted].'

See, we have Libel laws and such for a reason. A 'legitimate' newspaper will lose sales for printing stuff like that, but a blog can't lose sales as it doesn't sell.

Re:They are afraid of this:

[Doc Ruby]

I dunno, an unaccountable Anonymous Coward posted that. I don't give it any credence. And libel suits, including one I just read this week, are often dismissed when "a reasonable reader" wouldn't ascribe any credence to the publisher. The courts are completely inadequate to police "truth in publishing", except in cases of demonstrable damages (where the courts should collect the "punitive damages" from the perp, not the victim). Otherwise, in your logic, newspapers that can afford to lose some sales can commit libel, or just recruit stupid people.

Even more to the point, my definition requires journalists to do journalism. If Lugar weren't one of the stupid failed lawyers with which we fill Congress, he wouldn't agonize so much over "what is a journalist". A journalist would need to prove they had at least two corroborated sources who said those disgusting lies about your cat. A lying AC blogger doesn't have the truth on their side, or even professional credibility, so they're not shielded.

Power and Control

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a real chummy relationship between mass media and politicians. The internet is changing that relationship and mass media doesn't like it. Neither do the politicians that rely on big media to get re-elected term after term. Big media doesn't like losing a customer that will alwasy owe them a really big favor and the politicians are lazy and don't want the pain of learning the changing rules of the game. However, while the rules are changing, there's an opportunity for politicians to get something they can't have, at the moment: greater control over who gets to talk about the government in mass media. The new law may be an attempt to create a vetting system for journalists. Scary.

An earlier slashdot article discussed a law that allows unlimited campaign contributions from individuals and corporations for internet advertising. Again, the politicians are staking out a way to get something they can't have right now (unlimited corporate contributions).

We live in intersting times.

I am,
AC

Defining it would be very bad...

[spiritraveller]

The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US, Lugar said. But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?

The summary misses the point here.

The minute you start letting a government define "journalist", you give it the power to take away Freedom of the Press.

If being a member of "the press" depends on some statutory definition, then Congress could make an end-run around Freedom of the Press by constricting the definition. Creating a statutory definition of a "journalist" would set a very bad precedent for the First Amendment and for the practice of journalism, even if that were not the intended consequence.

Now I'm a journalist.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a dumbass, more at eleven.

Mod Up!

[TopSpin]

It's short, but damn if it isn't 'insightful'.

Bloggers receive more protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloggers don't need the Shield Law. Bloggers are individuals and have the individual right to freedom of speech, whereas news organizations aren't quite the same type of entity.

I'd say that bloggers are more protected in terms of the constitution than news agencies who earn a profit from reporting.

now that we have a definition

[lookme]

we can preserve a journalist for every one that we destroy.

(this is kind of funny if think about what happend to wetlands after a definition was agreed upon.)

Freedonm of Speech...

[n0tammused]

...is not the freedom to obstruct an investigation. If I admit to knowing the name of a murderer, or of a source who has contact with said murderer, I would not have the right to then refuse to relinquish that information without facing criminal charges. The only exception, of course, is when giving that information would result in self incrimination. I see no other article in, or amendment to, the US Constitution which clearly defines such a right. I also vehemently reject the right of clergy to hold confidential the confession of a violent criminal. And I hold a priesthood calling in my church.

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[pinkocommie]

Mind providing a link, I heard about the media actually reporting for a change but didnt hear about the retractions of that. Thanks

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; ...

So does that mean that bloggers are "journalists" if their blog updates on a periodic schedule?

That Matt Drudge is not a "covered person"?

I don't think, after the Monica Mess (just for starters), that there's any question whether Matt qualifies as a journalist or The Drudge Report as a journal, despite its aperiodicity.

Then there's the folks at Little Green Footballs, Powerline, and Free Republic that caught CBS and Rather with the forged documents. (Powerline is clearly a journal of opinion, while Free Republic is essentially a large-C Conservative Slashdot.)

I think these names need to be brought into the congressional debate on this bill - to get some congresscritters on record about their intent, and to set up court future court tests on whether the exclusion of bloggers is constitutional.

Existential logic and this argument

[tod_miller]

Journalists > Bloggers > Normal information on the web?

How can this Ken idiot (caesar@arstechnica.com) suggest (through a very public and angsty display of 'boohoo why isn't bloging like, as cool as journalism, I am a journalists, I am, take me seriously please! oh go on!') that JOURNALISM cannot be defined, so BLOGGING should be netted in the same catch as journalism.

WTF at least journalism describes the act of writing about news and events and stuff. I could blog about my navel lint and be safe in the warm glow of this 'shield law' which the article fails to coherently describe it, or its relation to blogging:

Blogging Writing stuff and displaying it in reverse chronological order

I also agree that displaying written stuff in reverse chronological order mean that said stuff should be given special case consideration for everything, including but not limited to a free hamburger with every meal at macdonalds.

HOW can he blondly state all that crap in the article about journalism having no definition, and place blogging as a special case of content?

it, wha... ju... ff... in.. in explicable!!!

sigh.

Re:Existential logic and this argument

[MorePower]

Blogging Writing stuff and displaying it in reverse chronological order

Agghh! But I hate it when people put stuff in reverse cronological order. I'm straying off topic here, but I certainly don't want blogging to be defined as being displayed wrong. The only correct order of things is "nested, oldest first"!

Re:Existential logic and this argument

[tod_miller]

You are so misguided:

-1, Threaded, Highest Scores First ...the only way to slashdot. ;-)

(feeling vindictive? scroll half way down and let off a volley from your 5 shooter 'troll' gun ;-) - stress relief /. stylee, also comes with optional flamebait or overrated ammo )

Re:Existential logic and this argument

[mdwh2]

But would you rather than Slashdot articles were displayed oldest first?

Perhaps the grandparent post was just making a joke, but pretty much all news sites will put newer or more important articles first too.

Definition...

[sigzero]

If you list your occupation as "journalist" bingo...the vast majority of bloggers are not journalist and thus do not and should not recieve protected status.

Journalist??!!

[Efialtis]

Since when did the "freedom of press" only cover journalists?

here is the answer

[hyperstation]

blogging is NOT journalism, journalists are held to a higher standard than your average cheeto-covered, 400 pound and living with parents blogger.

Re:here is the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the standard, then?

Jayson Blair? Geraldo Rivera?

Give me a break. There are bad rotten fruits amongst the "good" journalists, yet this law makes no distinction. It is their place within the corporate media structure that gives them their "credentials".

Bullshit.

Re:here is the answer

[hyperstation]

jayson blair and geraldo shouldn't be compared - blair is a plagiarizing liar; rivera is not. bloggers and journalists cannot be held to the same standard. i can post anything i want in a blog, totally made up or not, with or without actual sources and face no real consequence. journalists cannot do that in the real media. i'd say a main difference between blogging and journalism is integrity.

from another angle, i can cite newspapers and magazines (the product of true journalists) in my own work; citing someones blog, which may be here today and gone tomorrow, is not at all acceptable.

Re:here is the answer

[Steve B]

i can post anything i want in a blog, totally made up or not, with or without actual sources and face no real consequence. journalists cannot do that in the real media.

Two words: Dan Rather.

(No, retiring doesn't count as "real consequence" if you were about to retire anyway.)

Re:here is the answer

[hyperstation]

Two words: Dan Rather.

(No, retiring doesn't count as "real consequence" if you were about to retire anyway.)

there are always exceptions to the rule.

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[revscat]

Read the article. The bill specifically mentions employment and the primary business purpose of your employer as considerations in to what constitutes a journalist. The first draft of the bill defines journalist as:

any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service.

I fail to see how this contradicts anything I have said. And Lugar himself, the author of the bill, specifically stated that bloggers would not be considered journalists.

There's more to this than meets the eye.

[postbigbang]

Consider libel and slander. Without laws that protect us from lies, we can be damaged-- reputations undone, loss of income, even our families. So journalistic standards have to have a basis. If journalists cited all sources, then Woodward would have never heard from his now deceased Deep Throat.

Bloggers range from very smart and ethical to the most obscene of blatherers. At least journalists try to ascribe to standards of communications conduct, something that's not imposed on any other kind of speech, saving hate speech in some jurisdictions.

It's not the corporate mob that Lugar is trying to protect, rather to define the basis of individuals that must ascribe to responsible speech above that which is enjoyed by everyone as free, as in truth, fiction, lies, specious nonsense, and what ever one chooses. I applaud the distinctions.

That said, the running dog lackey sycophantic idiots that swallow big fat Disneyland-on-the-Potomac lies deserve a dog's death.

Re:There's more to this than meets the eye.

[Anonymous Coward]

Defining what is and isn't "permitted" speech is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent from happening. The First Amendment doesn't saing anything about "responsible speech" or what types of speech are allowed and what is not. It is not the government's place to decide this beyond the usual "time and place" doctrine (yelling fire in a crowded theatre, demonstrating in the middle of a highway, etc).

Given that the mainstream media is commercial in nature and this is reflected in the choice, content, and frequency of reporting, I would be very afraid of making such distinctions between bloggers and so-called "real journalists".

Take Matt Drudge, for instance. He may have no journalistic credentials (no formal college schooling in journalism, which is a farce to begin with, no previous work with major papers, etc.) but yet is doing things that the mainstream scoffs at. He brings unedited and raw information directly to his readers. He was the one responsible for bringing the Lewinsky story to light becuase the mainstream media refused to run it. More and more, people in government, corporate, and elsewhere are using Drudge to run with information that the formal media does not care about. Why should Drudge not be allowed to enjoy the same shield protections that others would? The same should apply to people like Michael Moore as well, who do much the same thing.

Exactly why 'bloggers' shouldn't muddy the water

[tod_miller]

... and endanger the necessary protection for credible and reputable (dealing in the currency of reputation, anyone can get a damn 15 minutes (or shorter with slashdot-effect) of fame on slashdot - which is why I suggested a new source moderation guid)) journalists?

Idiots like this may give ammunition to bush and his 'hey, let em bwoys have their fun and torchure dem inmates yall ok?' attitudes in society to silence and penalise outspoken reputable journalists.

Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) recently revealed that so-called bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists by the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, which will include provisions detailing "shield law" protections for journalists. In effect, this could mean that it will be open season on those pesky bloggers once this bill passes.

Clarification: he implies that a 'blogger' (oh ffs) will have less rights and less freedom of speech after this bill. Now, not having read it, I am assuming it is not removing freedom of speech from non protected people (unless this is typical bush administration naming, where green laws give more freedom to pollute, and pro education laws give less money to schools...) but giving special case to those who wish to report truth without fear of being silenced, yet, because they have a reputation, still be at risk for reporting falsehoods, or overstating their position.

(and the hyperventilating premature-ejactulation crowd of bloggers never overstate their case... the word zOMG!!11 comes to mind...)

So by stating it will be 'open season' is so lame, it needed to be brought out.

Re:You are NOT smart.

[Paladin144]

Journalists are the ones who provide the news.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. Its sheer idiocy prevents me from tackling it thoroughly, but I will give you the short version why. First, who defines "news"? One person's news is another person's trash. Does what Paris Hilton wore today count as news? According to some "journalists", it does. A blogger can easily (and verifiably, with pics) report this "news." This law lets the government define both "news" and "journalist", which is the height of stupidity. The government should protect the free speech rights of all citizens, not just a certain class or profession. This law is clearly in violation of the first amendment.

Second, just to drive the point home about how stupid your statement is: Some journalists ARE bloggers. What about them? Does the fact that they blog make them suddenly cease to be journalists?

Thirdly, many of the so called "journalists" you're thinking of do no actual news-gathering. They sit in their office and come up with opinions and provocative statements that will help sell newspapers/get them on TV as pundits. These people are useless. They don't "provide" any news. They just talk. That's it. I dunno where you got the idea the journalists are a respectable profession. Most of the time they do little more than parrot what the administration has just said. Or they regurgitate a press release about the new products that have been released today. The investigative journalists of old are a dying breed because their work takes actual time and resources. It's so much easier and cheaper to just hire a bunch of partisan hacks. You think NBC or Fox gives a shit about giving you the unvarnished truth? Hell no, they just want ratings. They're corporations - they're here to make money, not improve your life. Get a clue.

Lastly, I must say the only good thing about your above statement is that you inadvertantly exposed just how pre-packaged our "news" is. You make it sound like they go up on Mt. Sinai and returns with the [angelic voices].... NEWS. What a bunch of crap. Any idiot can be a reporter. All you need is a tape recorder and the ability to write. The so called news we receive is tainted from the get-go. The government spins it, then the reporters spin what the government said, and then the pundits and bloggers spin what the reporters reported. The corporate journalists like to feed us the news, but only after they've pre-chewed it for us. They like to say that it's so much easier to digest that way. But maybe they're scared of how we might interpret it if they didn't do it for us.

My God, man. Bloggers are the only true journalists left! They're a form of meta-journalist. (Have you heard the phrase, "Who will police the police?" - well, who will report on the reporters? Bloggers) They're spinning, too, but at least you have more options.

OT/point

[alan_dershowitz]

Technically they have not been granted due process. The restriction is not part of their sentence, and indeed, the law applies to CMs who fulfilled their sentences even before the law was put into place. The way that it is rationalized is that the law is not an action to restrict the rights of CMs, it's an action to prevent future crimes.

Back to the topic at hand, I would say that probably a journalist shield law is legitimate under the 14th amendment insofar as a) it's a federal law, not a state law and b) it protects the right of anyone to BECOME a journalist--occupation clearly denotes certain privileges, for example as a police officer. Would anyone go so far as to say that police officers have no extra privileges (high speed pursuit, handling of illegal materials, whatever) under the 14th amendment?

..."restore the Free Press..."

[tj_mr_wizard]

"The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US," Lugar said

Really?!?!?! I did not know that the Press was not free in the US. Doesn't the Constitution of the United States of America GUARENTEE that? Doesn't it already exist?

Hmmmmmmm......"Something smells rotten in *ahem* Washington"

What defines a journalist? Easy, anyone who writes a story to inform others. At least that is how I look at it.

Blogger control Act

[jmorris42]

This is nothing more nor less than the Blogger Control Act of 2005. It is the last dying gasp of the 'mainstream media' to remain relevent in the face of the change we all see coming. Ten years ago the idea of government regulation of journalists would have received universal condemnation, but fear is forcing the press to do something very stupid.

Once the government gets into the business of handing out official press badges it will serve to draw a nice sharp line between the MSM and the bloggers, with one group getting to continue as things are now while the bloggers get pretty much driven out of the US IP space. Don't believe me, think I'm daft? McCain Fiengold will see to it. Once bloggers are offically outside of the 1st Amendment's protection, that it only applies to Press Guild members, political topics will be pretty much off limits. Yes this will include Slashdot within a month or so of an election.

And for awhile the Press will be happy with this new law they are buying..... but only for awhile. Then they will learn the true power of the Dark Side of Government.

Try this definition!

[Anonymous Coward]

A journalist is anyone, including bloggers, that activly seek and research topics for the purpose of expressiing thier point of view by some means of communication.

What this means is what ever means you gather information, that information should be protected.

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[the_real_bto]

Groklaw should qualify as well.

A "covered person"

[Sloppy]

According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes...

Instead of worrying about what a journalist is, do this instead: Have a "covered person" mean "any person." Something called the "Free Flow of Information Act" shouldn't assert that some people have special rights that others don't.

Libel, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Libel is still illegal. The crux is what is defined as journalism and how to define journalistic persons.

Hmmm. Slippery road we are on but its DO or DIE at this point.

Fourth Branch of Government

[Anonymous Coward]

So journalists are the fourth branch of government, right? That's why they are given special privileges to obstruct justice.

So enshrine it in the constitution: A journalist is somebody the president of the United States appoints for the lifetime status, with full senate hearings and all.

I'd say, to be on the safe side...

[zogger]

...if you are blogger, join one of these associations, whichever you feel is more appropriate. Can't hurt dealing with the fedmonster.

BTW, Lugar has always been a NWO *goon*, nothing new there

http://www.shgresources.com/resources/newspapers/a ssociations/

OR, perhaps a group of lads here would be interested in forming an "open source press association"? We'll use that name in fact.. We can not only self accredit ourselves, but I propose we get to wear funny hats and give ourselves exalted titles...

I am self appointed Imperial Grand Poombah, and I wear a boonie hat that has been run over and mowed before, it has mucho character and qualifies as funny looking...I'll sew PRESS into it somehow

    next guy, grab cool titles before they are gone

Re:I'd say, to be on the safe side...

[frankm_slashdot]

yeah,.. i just grabbed all the last of the ties... except the white/black polkadot tie... someone else can have that one...

in fact, im gonna wear them all at the same time to meetings of this OSPA... hah. .and my shiny slick leather shoes with the vibrant purple stripes.. i awesome...

if im not mistaken, there were a few shirts left on the clearance shelf... someone might want to get to them before i get back.. ok.. whens the first meeting?

Any Journalists Left?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: 'Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists?

How many "so-called journalists" are there that DON'T work for commercial businesses?? Last I heard there are not that many independents left in the field. Most of them ultimately work for some corporation or other. A proper name for the new breed might be "sensationalists" or "progagandists".

Clarification please?

[Thunderstruck]

I R'ed TFA, but I can't tell for sure what this law is supposed to shield journalists FROM. Can anyone enlighten me?

Way to make assumptions...

[drewxhawaii]

Many of the so called "journalists" you're thinking of do no actual news-gathering.

Tell me, please, which journalists am I thinking of?

Just because there are a few journalists who, through their blog, cut out the twice-spun and pre-chewed bullshit that I hate just as much as you, and provide the news first-hand, doesn't mean all bloggers should be referred to as journalists.

Let's talk numbers here. Of the millions of blogs on the internet, how many do you think are straight from a hard-working journalist and are actually worth reading? Now, how many are written by teenage angst-baskets, or worse, middle-aged soccer moms who write about what they heard someone talking about on the radio yesterday?

All 3 examples deserve to be covered by the Shield Law, but only 1 deserves the name "journalist"

Reasonable Person Standard

[Brushfireb]

The reasonable person standard is a common use in courts. The whole reason you use "reasonable" person is so that then courts (and jury's) can make decisions about specific cases.

You dont actually WANT to define reasonable, because it can change over time. The reasonable person standard, however, makes it clear that if there is a problem, the courts and peers will decide.

This is common in contract, liability, even criminal law. WHy not use it here?

Re:Reasonable Person Standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, as an example, at one time the average "reasonable person" thought that burning witches was alright. That's why.

Re:Reasonable Person Standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh...I'd say it's because it makes it hard for an average person to know what the courts define as "reasonable," without consulting with a lawyer. Arguably this is a bad idea in all cases. Lawyers are happy with it, of course.

It's not so bad with old laws, because at least you can consult and get an answer. With new laws, you have to wait for the test cases. No fun being a test case...

Re:Reasonable Person Standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Because with this law, reasonable people disagree on what is "reasonable." What this law actually means is not obvious, and will end up depending on which set of reasonable people decides the first cases. Given that we don't all agree, wouldn't it be better to nail it down legislatively, through the democratic process? Let the courts decide, and you can get very unpopular laws, with no accountability for the politicians who made it possible. Plus, some poor schmuck with a different definition of reasonable than the court's ends up going to jail, even if the majority of the population agrees with him.

Unfortunately, we don't.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Why do we need a definition, or a 'shield' law?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that (despite their claims and history of defending them by passively-resisting all the way to jail) the free press clause of the First Amendment does NOT give journalists a privilege to refuse to reveal their sources when that is demanded by the legal system.

That can be fixed by a constitutional amendment to clarify the issue. Or it can be fixed by a law to explicitly grant such a privilege.

A law may be less stable (since it's subject to easy revision and relatively easy overturning). But it's a LOT easier and quicker to get into effect.

Also: You can use a law to debug the wording, then promote it to an amendment if courts find something in the constitution to trump it while it's still just a law.

But such a law will serve as a statement of congress' intent that their OTHER laws shouldn't be interpreted to mean journalists must reveal sources unless the other law explicitly says so. (It can also serve as a statement that CONGRESS intepreted the First to mean what the reporters claim). Making laws to implement the constitutional guarantees in particular situations - as long as they don't REDUCE the extent of the guarantees to less than the Framers' clear intent - is within the powers of the Congress.

With such a law in place the courts may back off, making the amendment unnecessary.

(Or the Supremes might decide the right of litigants to due process of law trumps a shield law. In that case promotion to an amendment will be necessary.)

My Point In Case It Gets Lost

[tod_miller]

And Other Title Case Woes. ;-)

Why decry the protection being offered to journalists and lament 'blogging', and not see that blogging is nothing from normal speech, and opinion. The crux is:

Why wasn't the argument that all people should have this protection but the argument given was all bloggers, especially those in my 'blogroll' *clique like snicker* shoudl have these protections, so we may add cute little self involved disclaimers lovingly to the bottom of a self involved blogs.

I bet he has already drawn up some cool 18x45 web buttons saying 'my blog is protected and therefore my opinion pwns yours!' (would have to be a small font to fit in a 18x45, but blogs always use shitty small fonts don't they? hey, maybe that is why they should be protected!

Back on topic: the very fact that he laments the use of the word journalism, and then uses the word blogging, as if this is some clearly defined, clearly eligible group (unlike journalism...) that deserves this credit...

Isn't his argument tantamount to saying that all 'blogs' should come with an implied disclaimer: the following is my opinion and may not be accurate, and don't sue me, but if you do I don't mind because I will get my name in a published journal like a real journalist!!1OMG

Isn't it? Do you trust the sanity of someone who makes such a statement, 'publishes' it, and revels (as he is now) that it is on slashdot.

I think one strand of credibility in a journalist is, while they seek to work for bigger publications, the reason isn't to get more 'page hits' or 'traffic' to their opinion, than it is to push fact and great writing to further their reputation and give their plight a larger audience, a plight that has been validated by their ability to move up in the world of journalism.

Such natural elements of selection are not present in the slashdotted world today, and any hyperventilating (like myself), premature-ejaculating (unlike myse.... oh oh oooh, damn...) dickwads can get their lame, easily ripped apart, mocked and spat on, published on slashdot just by including:

1) a reference to a bill
2) the snip 'tech' in the url
3) the word blog
4) quotation marks

There is some semblance of balance to this commentary:

The reason all of this matters, of course, is because it is essential that journalists receive special protections to ensure them freedom of the press. The case of ThinkSecret et alia comes to mind (although that problem largely looks solved now, as TS has managed to report several conflicting rumors relating to today's big Apple event in the span of a week--one could say that they give all insanity equal billing).

Sayeth Dick Lugar:

"I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail."

In all of this talk of privilege, there is a mounting fear in some journalism circles that the federal government may want to leverage this "privilege" with a federal licensing program of sorts, which is enough to make some people twitch. How else will this dilemma be solved? And two demerits to the person who pops up and says, "false dilemma!"

He has basically underscored the point, then contradicted himself. We establish that journalism needs protecting, and that libellous/false information needs to be punishable, yet he cannot see that these both point to a law that gives certain limited protections against recourse to certain reputable that is someone who is a journalist by reputation (wether they posts their articles online in reverse chronological order or not...pffffff) and does so under an organisation, rather than as opinion, or is carrying a truth, or rumour - but is still l

Re:My Point In Case It Gets Lost

[NetRAVEN5000]

". . . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . .

Read the rest of this comment..."
^^^^^^^^^ NO! BAD! ^^^^^^^^^

I've written and read some long posts in the past, but I've NEVER seen one long enough for part of the original message to get truncated. Just a tip for everyone: I know we all have certain subjects that we LOVE to elaborate on, but when you see that scrollbar to the right of where you're typing get really small, that's a sign that maybe you wrote too much - if it takes more than 3/4ths of the page to say it, then you should try looking through what you just wrote and see if you can condense it a bit. I mean, seriously - a whole page and a half is just too much.

But anyways. . . as far as the "freedom to blog" thing goes, I really think that anyone should be allowed to put what they want in their blog. NO ONE should have the right to govern what you put in a journal (or diary for you girlies out there ;) ), and they shouldn't have the right to govern what you put in your blog (unless it's something that's a personal attack on them).

if(hadPoints) modUp;

[TheSpoom]

Interesting idea. I'm not sure he thought that far through it but if he did, it's quite brilliantly evil.

NY Supreme Court disagrees

[riptalon]

The New York supreme court ruled in Banco Nacionale de Mexico v. Narco News et al. (Dec. 5, 2001) that "this court finds that Narco News is a media defendant and is entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, supra, 376 US, at 270-280)". See: NY Supreme Court Rules Online Coverage Protected Speech.

who gets to decide who is what?

[ReverendLoki]

You can rant all you want, but I have seen an article in a newspaper about belly-button lint...

Thing is, if we draw a line in the sand and say on one side you're a journalist, and on the other side you aren't, then what standard are you going to use? Is it simply that a journalist is paid for his or her craft? Put some ads on a blog, and you're paid too. It can't be whether people pay for the privelege of seeing your work - just look at the number of quality free newspapers out there. Is it that the work makes it into print form? Not only is it easy enough for a blogger to print up 20 copies to hand out to friends, but there are plenty of professional journalistic sites that publish a lot of articles on their sites that never make it to the print versions.

Then there's the issue that the line between who is and is not a journalist has been historically fuzzy. How about the colonialists who printed the leaflets in favor of independence leading up to the Aerican Revolution? The pirate radio station operating behind enemy lines? The resistance rags of WWII occupied France?

While I'm at it, where would Matt Drudge fit into the whole thing?

133tism

[Nom du Keyboard]

Are bloggers journalists

That's just 133tism talking. They're not real journalists because they don't write for the registration required NYT. They're not real journalists because they don't get paychecks from ink-on-newsprint operations. They're not real journalists even though they beat the regular news organizations to so much of the news.

They're not real journalists, and we should take every opportunity to remind them of this. Especially since I -- Mr. Lugar to you -- want to remain on the friendly side of the real press, without whom I have a snowball's chance in h311 of getting re-elected next time around.

Journalist's guild

[Julian Morrison]

What you just witnessed was stage 1 of the formation of a guild. The government has decided to grant "journalists" special privileges. As a necessary part of this, it's also taken on itself the role of defining "journalist". From now on, a journalist is what the government says is one.

Stage two is industry insider capture of the definition process, and its formal transfer to the journalists themselves. At which point, the guild is fully formed, and they start pressing for action against "unlicensed" non-members, cf: doctors.

They should be

[Anonymous Coward]

blogs (sic) are nothing but online diaries "I saw this woman wearing a green hat with her yellow coat! ugh!".. blogs (sic) have nothing to do with journalism whatsoever!

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Hearty agreement.

Journalism - ala Devil's Dictionary.

[moorley]

(n). Yet another -ism or -ist used to convey identity and status upon those who engage in an art they no longer love and based on ideals they no longer practice.

Pardon me while I show my conservative side but this is just an attempt to resuscitate an imagined past (say the 50's with a dash of Edward R. Morrow) that never really existed. There are no more risks than there were back then. They require no more protections than they do now. Journalism is not an integral part of our society, citizens are.

If you are going to convey rights then you need to convey them to all citizens, not just to yet another elitist class that may or may not share your values, will have more rights and protections and have a "get out of court free card" when they engage in their frailties, such as bad judgement.

The fact that the current "poster child" sat in jail when she already had a written document from the person she was protecting that she could speak makes this whole thing patently silly, and decidely false. What's the real motivation for this bill and why does it single out big press and printing houses rather than getting to the core of what journalism is really about? A citizens' duty. All citizens, whether they wear the hat of a lawyer, judge, politician or journalist, have a duty for the common good. If journalism needs more definition then they should setup something like the bar association with their own legal defense fund and canons of practice. Politicians have access but should have no more legal standing than a citizen performing their duty; why should a journalism get more protection when they have no more duty then the rest of us?

Similar issue

[Rufus88]

Why doesn't a similar issue come up with regard to attorney-client privilege? Why can't anyone, who doesn't want to testify against a person, claim attorney-client privilege? Is it because of the need for a law degree? Or the need to be earning a living as a lawyer? If we can accept such constraints on who is allowed to give private counsel, why do we have a problem saying that you need to be in the business of reporting information to the general public?

AC responds

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you remember to take your medication this morning?

Cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Before anybody starts to say that "everybody's a journalist and shouldn't be forced to reveal their sources", remember that being compelled to testify cuts both ways. It can put somebody in jail (*cough* Karl Rove *cough*), but it can also free somebody, because the defense can subpoena witnesses, too. It's quite possible that a journalist would publish a story such as, "anonymous police sources think that evidence was planted by police". If you couldn't compel the journalist to reveal sources, the defense might be damaged. So this law might be unconstitutional.

Freenet, TOR, I2P, and Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

With the inception of TOR, I2P, Freenet (and the new Darknet beta), the whole idea of censorship is about to become a moot point. For that matter, the idea of a government is about to become a moot point as well.

For more information: Assassination Market

Make a printshop!

[foolinator]

Just print each entry on the blog, bring it to a coffeeshop, and now you're a journalist!

(even though there's millions of reuters/AP articles that never make it to print - like blog articles, and many times the articles are not accurate - like bloggers, and AP/Reuters put their articles on feeds - like bloggers with RSS)

Hrm... what's the difference.. I guess you need a degree...

Works for Priests

[scaryjohn]

We have a "priest-penitent" privilege that applies to faiths other than Catholics... all without getting the constitutional jibbly-jibblies about who is or isn't priestly or penitent enough to qualify for the privilige.

Is there a reason to think we won't get to a similar equillibrium about journalists once we decide to go down that road? I mean, that's a big reason detractors cite against a statutory shield for journalists.

All the same, do we want a shield law? I mean, the other privileges we have are bound up in the third-parties' Fifth Amendment rights: we want people to be able to talk to attorneys, doctors, therapists, immediate family members and religious counsel without fear that their seeking help or guidance will land them in the dock. Who does a shield law protect? I mean, the guilty whistleblower is likely to get some sort of immunity if he should testify in open court and anonymous sources are less credible than named ones.

Just thinking aloud in that last paragraph. I hadn't thought about this since starting law school.

everyone should have rights of a journalist

[Khashishi]

Since when did journalists become special class citizens?

To me, freedom of speech means the freedom to NOT speak.

mod parent up [Re:Journalism Is as Journalism Does

[saitoh]

I think that part of their worry stems from trying to define who is covered based on catagory, not product.

That said, I whole heartidly agree with your first paragraph as a starting point for what defines a journalist. The problem with (some/many) bloggers is that they have not taken the precautions to be reporters (which inherently implys unbiased telling of events without opinion), and (some/many) times only convey a side of the story that fits their idiology. I've read some blogs that try their hardest to try and just report, and I've read blogs that have no interest in being balanced and unbiased. What makes one a journalist and another just a pundit? The definition presented in the parent post moves in the direction of answering that, but it uses the product as the test, not the label that is applied to the writer.

Actually

[geekoid]

  Criminal investigations will have to progress by gathering evidence instead of hersay.

If people can't talk to reporters without fear of reprocussions, there can be no true freedom of the press. Only freedom to repeat what don't upset those in power.

If a report reports on a crime by a source, then law enforcement can start investigating through other means.
for example:
someone claims that the police are taking bribes. Then they can start there investigation by looking at accounts, and purchases of the police department in question. you know investigating.

Duh!

[Guppy06]

"Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"

Easy: YOU DON'T!

What part of "Congress shall make no law" doesn't he understand? Heck, I don't see how Congress has the power to protect Valerie Plame's identity to begin with...

Journalism is not a thing people do

[geekoid]

it's a process people go through when they disseminate information.

Fact check/ keep there biases to a minimum(perferable completly out)/ maintain a professional approach to doing there job.

There's a journalist.

Zines would be considered Journalism

[infonography]

We have let a madeup word blur what a journalist is.

Has I have owned the domain http://www.zines.com/ for well over 8 years, See BTW below. I would guess it qualifies me as well, but my role has been more as an editor then journalist. Of bloggers, I would say they could be journalists. But Blogs are closer to being like Punditry. Un-original, un-researched, regugitations.

However, I can't see the test being anything that could exclude them from calling themselves journalists. If the laws say X number of stories in Y timeframe that isn't workable.

The test shouldn't be, did the person write stories that where "printed" on-topic to what they are trying to get protection. If somebody wrote a few fiction stories or opinions then went out an slammed a politico for some misdeed without showing clear proof. If they claimed Journalistic Privledge, then that a fair indication they are not covered. That falls into slander, if they can provide some documentation, like signed checks or pictures that's proof. Protect the source is one thing, have no proof is another.

A pundit should not be covered, they don't report anything. Unless your Bob Novack and your reporting on the identity of a undercover CIA agent. Or using the cover of a reporter to "report" for a fictious "News Organization" in the whitehouse press corps. I am slamming Novack because he's not reporting anymore. He's a full blown pundit. A pundit is a puppet.

Republican bashing aside, Air America barely squeaks by as a Actual News 0rganization. They do research, they report and opinionate much to the same degree like, I grudging admit Fox News is also an Actual News 0rganization.

Where as Talon "News" fails completely. From Wikipedia;

--

The Standing Committee of Correspondents, rejected Gannon's application for a Capitol Hill press pass because of Talon News'lack of independence from a political organization. Committee chairman Jim Drinkard wrote in his letter:

The application for accreditation to the press galleries states that "members of the press shall not engage in lobbying or paid advertising, publicity, promotion, work for any individual, political party, corporation, organization, or agency of the Federal Government." Talon News has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that there is a separation from GOPUSA/Millions of Americans.com.

--

Gannon was a blogger, but not a journalist. Other more topical orgnizations like http://www.circusnews.com/ are journalistic in nature and I would think that one of their self imposed limits would be where their reporter strayed off the topic (in this case Circuses) and into say Astronomy. Nothing really incendiary there (heh heh), however it's outside their organizations obvious field. This does NOT make it NOT NEWS, If that was to be an opinion piece in Astronomy, is the reporter from Circus News still covered as a Journalist? I would think in that case, no. If they were to report on any subject that could be construded as a legitimate news story then it's still a legit story by an 'employed' reporter. Just outside Circus News' normal market.

Likewise if a so called 'Blogger' wrote a real news story then they are acting as a journalist. A blogger should be seen in much the same light as the difference between a Taxi Driver and Your Mom. Both can drive you somewhere, like a hospital or a friend's house, but the diffence boiled down is one get's paid to do it as a profession (unless your Mom is a cabbie). But both can drive.

The test for a Journalist should be in the simplest term;

If you are acting as a Journalist at the time, then your a Journalist. If your using the claim to cover most crimes then your not one. It would get gre

Re:Zines would be considered Journalism

[Kelson]

We have let a madeup word blur what a journalist is.

Actually, "blogger" has an actual etymology not unlike "journalist," just much faster and more recent.

web + log = weblog (n)
weblog abbreviated as blog (n)
blog gets used as a verb, just like log, as in to log an entry
blog + er = blogger, one who blogs, i.e. one who keeps a log on the web.

It's been defined by use rather than simply being handed down from on high, and if people have come up with ridiculous derived buzzwords (like blogosphere), that shouldn't reflect on the root word.

A journalist is one who keeps a journal, originally in the sense of a daily record... which you could also refer to as a log.

Re:Zines would be considered Journalism

[Pollardito]

i don't see why the profession of the person who is writing the story is more important than the purpose of the story whose sources are being sought. the intent of the shield law is to protect whistleblowers from being unmasked after they give information to a third party, that's right it's really there to protect the people that are giving the journalist the information. so isn't the fact that the information came from someone who believed themselves to be whistleblowing more important than the fact that they gave that information to someone who is or isn't a journalist? i realize that this creates newer, sticky issues as to what is whistleblowing and what isn't, but it seems to me that these new issues are more at the heart of the matter than this journalist vs. blogger one. correct me if i'm wrong but as it stands now (even assuming we arrive at an agreement on the definition of journalist), the whistleblowing laws seem to make no distinction between someone giving that person the plans to a nuclear bomb and giving them information about stifled nuclear leaks.

Re:Zines would be considered Journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you can't really read English. Have you considered taking classes?

astro turfing

[Vspirit]

is that what we are talking about?
it definately is related to the difficulties
the slashdot briefing is writing about.

I'll keep on reading, the slashdot article
might turn up some interesting posts.

Give it your best shots.

Option 1 is not bad

[AntiCopyrightRadical]

In fact it is also spelled out in the 5th amendment, you have a right not to testify [even] against yourself.

Anytime you have the state trying to pry into someone's brain under threat of force, you have a problem.

People have a right to privacy, 'journalist' or not.

The constitution doesn't say anything about journalist, it says 'freedom of the press'. If it's printed, it's protected, how about that?

Re:Option 1 is not bad

[LeonGeeste]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you're being kind of glib in your dismissal of real issues, no offense. What if someone tells a cop "This Middle Eastern guy told me he was going to blow up a building and I recognized him from before". Then the cop says, "Who is this person?" and then he says "Whoa, whoa, confidential source, can't reveal, I consider myself a journalist." Then the cop says, "Oh, sorry, don't mean to intrude. Good day."

And most cases of revealing confidential sources does not involve 5th amendment issues; you're testifying about other people.

Re:Option 1 is not bad

[10101001 10101001]

And who's to say that you didn't find out about the whole "plot" why smoking pot? The simple fact is, there's a serious problem with the amendments to the constitution. Primarily, a criminal defendant can compel people to speak as witnesses for them, yet at the same time those witnesses are supposed to be granted 5th amendment protection themselves which might very well prevent them from speaking. Granting any type of immunity really doesn't resolve the problem because clearly you're still incriminating yourself; you're just not likely to be convicted.

The real core issue, though, is that the prosecutor/judge/etc can't know that something you might say will incriminate you unless you say it. So, I'd say they're clearly not the people that should be compelling you to testify under claim that you're really not self-incriminating. Seeing how you can be effectively jailed indefinitely for not testifying before grand jury or a criminal jury, I'd say such "contempt of court" would be an infamous crime and need due process of law (ie, a jury trial) to rectify. And since you're unwilling to testify, there'd be nothing to punish you for, so you'd have to be set free. That's, at least, the closest sort of resolution I can work out from the many different parts of the Bill of Rights.

another option

[kbielefe]

I have already written to my senators about this a while ago, as I seriously doubt they read slashdot. I suggest all you U.S. citizens do the same, whether you agree with me or not.

They are trying to solve the wrong problem, and are doing a poor job of it. The ideal we are trying to protect is the information, and confidential sources need a measure of protection in furtherance of that ideal. It is not the journalists that need protecting.

Consider the Valerie Plame case. Judy Miller covered up a crime in order to report another story. Not only was she the only witness, her testimony was the only evidence of the crime. In essence she chose to restrict the free flow of information about a crime, which is contrary to the general purpose of freedom of the press. How can we hope to enforce laws that prevent the disclosure of an operative's identity if they may be circumvented merely by disclosure to a journalist? They are the people who are able to cause the most damage by publishing that kind of information.

My suggestion is language like the following: "No person shall be compelled to disclose the identity of a confidential source unless that person has personally witnessed a crime committed by that source."

The wording is simple, concise, and avoids messy definitions about who is and who isn't a journalist. Hearsay is inadmissible in court anyway, so there is no need to single out journalists for special treatment. Whistleblowers are safe as long as they don't commit a crime in the journalist's presence. Bloggers get the same protection as a big media conglomerate, protecting the essence of freedom of speech.

Freedom of Press, not Freedom of Speech

[Kelson]

Because I'm sick of reading people getting them mixed up...

The first amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Whether someone is a journalist or not, freedom of speech is always a guaranteed right. Therefore, who is determined to be a journalist has no bearing on freedom of speech.

What is at issue is freedom of the press. In particular, people have been arguing over confidentiality of sources. The idea is that by allowing people to speak to reporters without fear of reprisal (even if the government can't prevent you from speaking, your boss may still be able to fire you or someone who doesn't like what you said can still follow you into a dark alley and beat you up), they are more likely to reveal corruption, incompetance, abuse, etc. that society is better of knowing about.

That's where you have to decide who constitutes the "press" and who does not. Both freedoms are listed in the first amendment, but they're different issues.

You misunderstand Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss understand Libel (Defemation).

If you get sued and lose, you pay regardless of how much money you make.
Your view of Libel is more of a Credibility Gap where th epublic refuses to buy your product. That has nothing to do with Libel.

Also, due to the Malicious Intent element for "public figures" it is essentially impossible to sue for Libel if you are considered a public figure. The press can intentionally falisfy as many stores as they want about you without any legal consequences. Now that Credibility Gap may develop, however.

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that Matt Drudge also has a syndicated radio show which is usually a good litmus test for "is person X a journalist". Don't even go into the argument of, "I podcast so that makes me a talkshow host too!!!". I think that basically raises him out of "blogger" space and into the realm of journalism.

Also, if you look at Drudge's site he doesn't "blog" but mostly acts as a news filter. Sort of like Slashdot without the dupes and assinine comments.

Besides, I doubt most "bloggers" get over 9 million hits per day talking about how their dog just ate their favorite pair of shoes.

Just because you have a calculator you can't claim to be a mechanical engineer any more than you can claim to be a journalist because you have an account on Myspace.

Here's the easy way to look at it: is it your primary job? No, then you are probably a hack and not a real journalist.

Re:Are "journalists" mentioned in the Constitution

[winwar]

"Now SeeBS, NBC, ABC and CNN can go back to manufacturing memos to use against enemy politicians and broadcasting sensational lies when natural disasters occur."

I'm confused. Are you implying that those organizations actually employ journalists?

Re:Good. They shouldn't be.

[Nurf]

The other reply to your polite request was a bit rude, so here are some useful links:

http://www.nola.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/nola _tporleans/archives/print082732.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050928-1 21515-2539r.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home -headlines

Another thing you might want to do is read every original transcript of everything Pres. Bush has said since 9/11. You'll never trust a newspaper again.

Another thing that works well is to compare newspapers against themselves six months later. You'll never trust a newspaper again.

God I hope the media don't get any sort of protection. I can't think of many groups that would deserve it less.

Because there are legal protections

[cgenman]

You have to define a journalist if all journalists are going to get special legal protection. For example, journalists are not required to reveal their sources (usually). Journalists can be present at certain illegal activities and not be charged with abetting (I'm sure a lawyer will correct me).

How do you prevent Frank the drug dealer from setting up a blog and refusing to reveal his sources? How would the police get anything done if everyone refused to reveal their sources?

Personally I think the law needs to change from protecting journalists (which has always been a vague concept) to protecting journalistic activities. The ThinkSecret kid is a law student, not a journalist, but he was dissemenating information in a journalistic fashion and those activities deserve protection.

Re:Because there are legal protections

[Allen Zadr]

Excellent point. It is similar to a point I answered above, but much better worded.

Though, if Frank the drug dealer does set up a blog, and reports on occurances within the drug underworld - within his connection to that blog, he is engaging in journalistic activities. If he, himself, is indicted for a crime, his protections as a journalist should be dropped (being a journalist implies ... hands off).

Obviously, the blog itself would be written in the third person, and not reveal Frank the Drug Dealer's own involvement in the happenings. In any case, the blog alone would not be enough to convict him (regardless of other protections), and for the police to show up, and ruffle him for names - based on the blog entry, and Frank the Drug Dealer's named association with that blog alone - would be entirely improper. Just like a "real" reporter though, this doesn't stop the cops from being right in observing Frank in public places, to find out who he associates with.

Re:This attempt to control the media is unacceptab

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Rush Limbaugh may be a fucktard, Dick Lugar most certainly is not.

I do not like politicians. But, somehow, I like Dick Lugar.

He is among the most respected of Senators and the most progressive members of the Republican Party (a Party I would never align myself with).

He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for about 10 years running, is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and co-sponsored the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Bill that has deactivated over 5,000 nuclear warheads.

He was a Rhodes Scholar and hangs out with Barack Obama in his free time.

Watch who you call a fucktard.

obtaining a license

[infonography]

If they make me get a license, then somebody will insure me. Hmm, that could be useful. In the comicbook Transmetropolitan the main character Spider was insured and used it as club to work mischief. By having a license and insurance your actions have legitimacy. Or at least the threat of lawyers. A license would give the reporter the same professional secrecy standing of a Doctor or Priest. (Scratch Priest, wink wink)

One thing that this discussion seems to miss...

[nonlnear]

What the senator is quoted as trying to do is interpret the constitution (and his bill). Granted, the senator is actually only speculating about how his bill would be read. The article makes a bigger deal of it than is appropriate.

The point is that, in the end, interpreting the law is the job of the courts - not congress. And this particular issue - who is and who is not "the press" will remain the domain of the courts until an unambiguous definition is legislated.

It's clear from reading the text of the bill (here), that the senator has tried to make it clear what he means, but the terms employed are problematic: "periodical", "magazine", etc. Whether a particular blog qualifies as "the press" or not is pretty clearly going to be handled case by case, as the issues are murky enough to require litigation. Once again for the libertarians out there: NO, WE ARE NOT ALL "THE PRESS"... at least according to current case law - which is what is relevant here.

The point of all this is: The senator's opinion is irrelevant.

My apologies to anyone who has already pointed this out - it just seems like most people who've commented so far just don't get it... or maybe they know that the senator's opinion doesn't matter, but just want to vent about the issue anyways. But I digress.

[OT] Libertarianism is like communism

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny you say that, because -- on paper -- libertarianism doesn't look great at all. Most people -- when confronted with the facts of it -- are quite chilled by the idea that the way corporations behave is the way we should all behave and indeed organize society.

Sounds like a blogger to me

[tilrman]

... any entity that disseminates information by ... electronic ... means and that publishes a ... periodical in ... electronic form...

Sounds like a blogger to me.

Well, maybe I underestimated people's good sense.

[nonlnear]

On second glance, there's a good number of people talking sense about the role of the legislature and the judiciary. I just had to dig deeper into the posts to find them.

Re:mod parent up [Re:Journalism Is as Journalism D

[Doc Ruby]

I think your point about unprofessional bloggers applies just as much to those with the "shielded journalist" brand today, who publish uncorroborated stories from anonymous, vested-interested sources (*cough* Karl Rove *cough*). So this is a serious issue that bloggers are forcing, but it by no means is limited to blogging. Of course, we'll see the Congress decide to protect corporate media, regardless of their merit, and abandon unpredictable independents who could "disrupt" the cozy little system keeping politicians connected to the compliant media they crave.

thanks

[quixos]

thanks for turning me on to the Dogood Letters. Fascinating! :)

Re:thanks

[Allen Zadr]

The reason why I chose that example is that Ben, himself, was the anonymous source of opinions that were unpopular with the government (England). At the time, he had to write the opinion in a way that would guarantee his own anonymity (which is still available for opinions in any case).

At the time, he was working for a publisher which skews the meaning I was trying to make. However, he should have been free to directly write editorials. Interestingly,James Franklin (Ben's older brother) whom was the publisher, was the first to serve a jail sentance for publishing libel (which only meant - opinions unpopular with the government).

This is a decent site, with a lot of information:
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/courant/

Have a problem figuring out who the press is?

[Anonymous Coward]

See in a Perfect(tm) world, all journalists would be required to obtain a journalism license.

Re:Have a problem figuring out who the press is?

[Anonymous Coward]

...issued by the Almighty Government, of course. Do you see the implications?

Politicians be damned!

[Jafar00]

Politicians be damned! We will blog free and will not give up our freedom of speech as a human right!

"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Journalist Jour"nal*ist, n. Cf. F. journaliste.
1. One who keeps a journal or diary; a diarist. Obs.
--Mickle.
1913 Webster

2. One whose occupation is to write for any of the public
news media, such as newspapers, magazines, radio,
television, or internet; also, an editorial or other
professional writer for a periodical.
1913 Webster +PJC

THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your "service" Cyric, you asshat. STFU.

Woody Woodpecker

[Anonymous Coward]

"This life insurance policy protects you from everything except falling from window" -

Proffesional journalists and reporters are never free to speak freely (at least not on any topic), they are self-censored because they have to suck it up to their bosses and/or public or they will lose their pay.

Therefore, it is waste of resources trying to protect de facto nonexistent freedom while denying protection to those who cannot be controlled that way, but only thru fear from retribution. So it ends without freedom whatsoever, as all sources are in check - covered with control by one or the other lever of influence.

Bloggers vs. Journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a fundamental difference between a blogger and a journalist.

A journalist has the intent of reporting the news. They refrain from including personal opinions, have formal training, and have an objective to report the news in an unbiased and fair manner. They have no other role than the reporting of news for the sake of reporting it, with no personal stake in the topic.

A blogger, on the other hand, is far more likely to have an accompanying opinion and secondary goal rather than simply the reporting of news. Personal opinions run high, most have no formal training, and most blogs are biased to the bent of the blogger reporting it. The blogger role is to report news for the sake of reporting and/or manipulating opinion either in favor or against the topic, and usually has a personal stake in the topic as well.

While there are exceptions, that is generally the difference.

Want to be a journalist? Write a story on a topic you know nothing about, in order to educate yourself and the public.

Want to be a blogger? Write a story on a topic you already know about, and have an opinion on.

Common vs. Statutory Law

[Irvu]

This is a case study of the intersection between Common Law and Statutory law. The notion of a "Journalistic Shield" has existed for some time. To the mind of the general public and many lawmakers, police officers, even special prosecutors 'journalists' serve a special function and are thus entitled to protection under the law. In the past this principle has been followed even at the Federal Level. Daniel Ellsberg the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers was punished, indeed someone nearly beat him to death on the steps of the Supreme Court building, but he was never convicted of treason nor was publication stopped. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, bowed to the common law notion that the information in the papers should have been available and that Ellsberg performed a public service by sharing it.

All of law is about principles and definitions. We do not wish to be murdered, and we think such acts are wrong so we enact a law saying that "(Murder -> Guilty) & (Guitly -> Punished)". The catch is that we then get to define "Murder". Murder itself is what is known as an open textured concept. Loosly speaking anytime I kill anyone it is murder. But! there are exemptions for cases where it was war, I was executing the person at the behest of the state, etc. For normative reasons the same act may or may not be 'murder'.

The fundamental challenge in law is in processing these concepts and dealing with them. Loosly speaking there are two approaches to this: Common Law and Statutory Law. The two are not incompatable, indeed most legal systems use both in different domains.

Common Law is that which is defined by general practice (public perceptions, the courts, and so on). A primary example of this (near to most /.'rs hearts is Fair Use). The concept of fair use has not been enshrined directly in any legal document (save obliquely in the Constitution). It has, however been defined over a number of years by caselaw. When asked about it people (even lawyers) describe it in terms of the open-textured concepts such as "educational purpose", or "personal use". In the past the coursts have happily ruled that playing a video for a class is an "educational use" but using an unlicenced copy of Photoshop to teach yourself is not. Similarly loaning a backup CD to your spouse is, to my knowledge, different than loaning it to a random stranger.

Statutory Law is that which is encoded by rulemaking bodies (Parliments, Congresses, etc.) The classic American example of this is the Tax Code which spells out in exacting detail what each and every thing is. A classic British example is the Nationality Act which defines who is, and is not a British Subject vis-a-vuis colonies, mixed parentege, etc. In statutory law it is necessary to spell things out explicitly as is being done here. A nice article at Lawmeme describes this as programming in the language Legal.

The point in which these two intersect is the definitions. In this case the goal is to define a 'journalist' or those who deserve the protection. What the authors are trying to do is to encode a common-law practice (that has yet to be set to paper) in a formal statutory way. The practical upshot of this is that they get to (if they want) to formalize the concept of a journalist. At present they seem to be tending towards the "someone who practices journalism" route, which is good. If they don't wish to overly specitfy things they could just punt (as they did with thje DMCA, and much biotech law) and write deliberately vague laws that are then up to the courts to decide.

The latter is not (in my opinion) entirely bad. In the case of the DMCA it has been bad but then the law was bad from the get-go. In the case of Biotech it is a cop-out by a congress too afraid of losing their jobs. In this case it might be good. When things are left up to

Benefits the networks and their advertisers

[cyberformer]

The point of the random killing segment is to make people afraid to go out, so that they stay at home and watch TV. When they do have to go out, they're more likely to want to do so in one of the armor-plated SUVs that are advertised in nearly every commercial break.