How Easily Congress Removed Protection From Citizen Journalists
from the no-profit?--no-protection! dept
The House of Representatives approved a bill this week that would give journalists protection to shield their sources rather than having to give them up. This is a rather important bill, and while there's little chance of it actually becoming a law at this point, Declan McCullough over at News.com does a great job showing how different versions of the bill continually watered down who was actually protected -- starting with anyone practicing journalism, shifting to those who made some money from journalism activities and finally moving to only covering those who make a substantial part of their living that way. Declan has the full text, highlighting the changes to each version. Of course, it's hard to see how this makes any sense. Why should your ability to make money from your journalistic efforts have any bearing on whether or not you can protect a source? Given the rise of so-called citizen journalism -- where just about anyone is a journalist -- why should only those who do it full time for money get protection?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, journalists, laws, protect sources
Companies: congress
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Onion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lip Service
Our lawmakers know that fewer and fewer people "make a substantial part of their living" practicing journalism, and more and more people are freelancing or publishing news for free (or for ad revenue that amounts to chump change). So they get to pass a bill that makes them look like they care, while actually being pretty near to completely ineffective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This question should be:
"why should only those who make a certain amount of money get protection?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What happens
And I also agree with comments #2 and #4. The old phrase, "The golden rule is the man with the gold makes the rules." is becoming more and more true these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: What Happens
"What happens if you have the same source as a professional journalist? Will you still have to give them up and just hope that no-one makes a connection to them also telling the protected party?"
Good point, what could happen, is that some sources will refuse to talk to anyone except those with enough money to be protected by law. This helps the old guard media keep their power, because new media can't protect their sources. It's another start towards government-enforced monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about....
If any "source" for journalism is protected by law then what's to keep me from spreading slanderous lies and writing it in my blog just to cry "source" when the targets of my slander sick their lawyers on me?
I'm sure this is a real concern with real journalist (read paid) at least they have their reputations to consider. As a blogger/amature journalist anyone can say whatever they like and if no one takes them seriously who cares, right?
Thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about....
I was kind of wondering this to. I thought to whole reason for the rule of giving up sources was to prove the story is true. I always think it looks bad when journalists who are asked to give up their source denies doing that.
Is there any benefit for journalists to protect their sources? Are we just suppose to believe whatever they print without knowing the source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about....
Yes. Without such protection whistleblowers will not come forward, especially in cases of government misconduct, for fear of reprisal. If you believe that it is good for society for govt misconduct to be exposed (some people don't), then it is important to protect those who do the exposing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about....
That's up to each reader to determine for themselves, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for us - some of us anyway
Those like me, who are currently unemployed, or those too lazy to do anything but spend our time writing on our blogs and playing games might benefit. Why? Because whether we make five cents, five dollars, or five large a week from ads on our sites we are deriving 100% of our income from journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong focus entirely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what...
"I don't recall."
It's the perfect defense. It is indisputable. It is completely legal. It's even Presidential...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second Ammendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Second Ammendment
What second amendment right is being violated by making journalists relinquish their sources so we all know they are telling the truth? No part of the Bill of Rights covers the freedom to lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Second Ammendment
That's what govt censors are for too, to make sure only the official "truth" get out.
No part of the Bill of Rights covers the freedom to lie.
Protecting sources is not lying. In fact, it usually helps to get the truth out. Some people don't like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad call, but
At some point shouldn't the people have some ability to tell some random guy running their mouth off about sources telling him things to put up or shut up?
I don't think it's a bad idea to shield journalists, but I'm concerned about the possibility of taking that definition too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad call, but
If you believe that source shielding is used to cover-up lying then what you're essentially saying is that it is OK for some journalists to lie but not others. That doesn't seem like a very principled position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad call, but
If we push the definition of journalist too far, we run the risk of diluting it to uselessness. If any moron with a cell phone cam and a blog can claim such protection, I worry that people will begin to regard it with such cynicism that it will no longer be an effective tool for journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad call, but
I see, so you only want some people to have protection to lie. The way I see it, everyone should have that protection or no one should. No just those who are "approved" to lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbyists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]