FEC Rules Bloggers Are Journalists

Dotnaught writes "The Federal Election Commission today issued an advisory opinion that finds the Fired Up network of blogs qualifies for the 'press exemption' to federal campaign finance laws. The press exemption, as defined by Congress, is meant to assure 'the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.' The full ruling is available at the FEC site. A noteworthy passage: '...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity...'"

Comments

Duh!

[jmorris42]

> "...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose
> its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity..."

Well of course not. Otherwise they would have to close down CBS and Fox News right off the bat. And then come back and get CNN, ABC and NBC the next day. On the third day they would shutter the NY Times, the Washington Post and pull the plug on the EIB Network's sat feed.

Of course by day four folks would show up in Washington with their 'Sporting Goods' and voice their 'opinion' about Campaign Finance Reform, reminding Congress that in the end the 1st Amendment, along with the rest are ultimately preserved by a willingness to exercise the 2nd Amendment. :)

Re:Duh!

[Fallingcow]

Years ago, there were tons of small independent papers publishing all over the country, most of which had a bias toward labor or business or any number of other things. The bias of each was pretty much out in the open.

These mostly got bought up or run out of business, until now when only a relatively small number of much larger papers and media companies run everything.

The bloggers are kind of like a return to that old model for print media in the U.S., I think, except way harder to buy out or run out of business, since most of them aren't even really in business. Biased indie papers are nothing new, and blogging is just the latest version of it. It was media then, it's media now.

Re:Duh!

[Jobe_br]

Exactly.

I think when some people think of "Media", they think of NYT, USA Today, ABC News, CNN, and their locally circulated newspaper, news stations, etc.

There's a lot more to media than just this. There are a great number of publications that are extremely biased, small indie newsletters, mini magazines and who knows what other formats. There are publications geared toward the military, toward eco-friendly folks, and everything up down and in-between.

And what's more amazing, is that most libraries carry these for their surrounding communities. Check it out sometime ... you'll find much more than just the WSJ and your local rag.

Brice

Re:Duh!

[tooba]

There's a good reason why minority rights and dissent are so important in our country: its because the majority doesn't always know what's right.

That being said; the fact is, unbalanced or not, FOX has the right to broadcast whatever message suits their purposes. It certainly isn't the government's job to dictate how politics are covered. Not that profit motive or the free market will dictate a plan of action that guarantees intelligent broadcasting or commendable journalism. Hell, in a counrty where Britney Spears and reality TV can dominate the airwaves, popular opinion and commercial support aren't worth all that much in the intellectual domain.

The media cannot be counted on to provide us with an intelligent view of the world. That is on our own shoulders. Liberal, conservative... it doesn't matter. They have all got their morons and those that have a clue. Just learn to watch with doubt- all that takes is an ability to smell bullshit when its presented to you. Then, maybe, the media could really be held accountable.

Tooba

Why this is necessary

[ReformedExCon]

Because some people think that there ought to be limits to Free Speech, it is required that government define exactly what types of Free Speech are really free and which ones ought not be so free.

McCain/Feingold campaign finance laws, which limit the Freedom of Speech of anyone with a political opinion, forces us to define what types of speech should remain legal.

It's sad and disappointing.

Re:Why this is necessary

[jasonditz]

Since when does campaign finance reform==freedom of speech?

I think it was about the time when they started considering public speech supporting a candidate a form of "campaign contribution". Why do you think the bloggers needed an exemption in the first place?

Re:Why this is necessary

[An Onerous Coward]

I don't think the Founding Fathers ever intended the "one dollar, one vote" system that occurs when you don't have regulation of campaign finance.

Do you?

Amendment I

[Woldry]

"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."

Freedom of speech applies to political speech. Campaign finance laws are blatantly unconstitutional. This ruling is offensive because it implies that only established and recognized "press" entities qualify -- and the government, whose interest is markedly not neutral, gets to decide who is and isn't "press".

Free speech good, but bloggers AREN'T journalists

[Nerdposeur]

I think the people trying to "censor" blogs do have a legitimate point: you can bet that everyone who is campaigning for something will set up blogs, pretending to be independant, that sing their praises. That's harder to do with "real" publications because they cost money to set up and run, and their ownership is public record.

I guess this is just part of the price of free speech. I do wonder if there's a good interface for "moderating" blogs, so that, for example, if one is sponsored by Candidate X in a sneaky way, and someone finds out, it can appear beside the name of the blog.

I'd also like to point out a fundamental difference between bloggers and journalists. I have worked at a newspaper, and spent all day calling people, attending government meetings, doing research and asking more questions before I wrote something. Bloggers tend to link to the work of real reporters, then offer comments, or worse, just repeat rumors as fact. At best, they are information scavengers, feeding on the facts hunted down by others.

Because a newspaper has advertisers and subscribers, it has to protect its reputation as being truthful. A blogger has nothing at stake. A newspaper also expects to get sued and tries to have a "truth defense" ready - to cover their butts by being accurate. They might not always succeed, but they have reason to try. I don't know whether any bloggers have been sued for libel yet, but I bet some will be. If you're going to "publish" something, you really do need to check your facts, and that usually takes more time than a hobbyist has.

Re:Always the geek. Running the numbers...

[TheFlyingGoat]

I'm a conservative and I would agree with the original poster, that the Washington Post is biased to the right. It's not nearly as much as Fox News, but it's definitely there. The Wall Street Journal also slants to the right to some extent. I can't listen to Fox News any more than I can listen to CBS... the slant is just too much. Obvious bias in either direction is annoying.

However, I can read the Washington Post and WSJ without any problem. Same for our local ABC affiliate.

Dig Deeper

[realgreendragon]

This is about money.

This is about money that the parties and candidates spend paying "bloggers" to write about how good they are.

The issue here is not free speach. It has been spun. The issue here is if someone is being paid to write something in a blog, then they should have to make that clear on the blog. There is a difference between an opinion piece and propaganda.

If 500 people all write in support of an issue and it turns out that they have been paid to all support that issue, it isn't really a grass roots support movement, is it?

This boils back down to the same issue as the gov. paying "journalists" to create fake news reports about certain issues.

I have no problem with parties and candidates paying people to write good things about them, I just want to know if what I am reading is someone's opinion or a campaign ad.

Jurnalist!

[Brandybuck]

Yestrday I could not spell jurnalist, now I are one!

Re:Always the geek. Running the numbers...

[7Prime]

I'm a Liberal, and I read the Post daily. I think, however, that the news media probably, as a whole, tends to have a leaning (I wouldn't go as far to say bias), toward the left simply because (and this is not meant to gauge conservative few points) the idea of empassionately assessing multipul viewpoints tends to be a process championed more by progressive ways of thinking. But the heart of it, I think the Post, whether left or right, practices GOOD journalism. The job of a journalist is to be a voice of communication for the people as a whole, so theoretically, a very good news source could position itself in such a way, that everyone thinks it's on their side. I'm pretty surprised, and actually a bit glad, to see conservatives think that the Post reflects more their views, because I think it reflects mine. Of course, that's not the point of journalism, but it feels that, at some level, they've earned the trust of a lot of people on both sides, which is very important.

My number one news source, however, is the News Hour. I don't watch network TV news: CNN is filth, CBS, NBC, and ABC are fluff (even if everyone says they're left leaning, I don't care, they lost THIS liberal), and FOX is made up of a bunch of neoconservative lobbiests—seriously, half of their stuff is made up of former conservative political advisors... Yes, I'm looking at you, Bill Kristol! The News Hour, and the other PBS news shows (Washington Week, Now, and Charlie Rose) feel like the only TV news that doesn't talk to me like I'm in 6th grade, and doesn't try to compress complicated events into 1 minute soundbytes. And when I watch news, I don't need to be entertained. I'm honestly excited and interested in learning about events at hand. Tell it to me straight. PBS is the only one that really does this anymore, the rest is just entertainment.