Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don't Deserve Shield Protection
from the and-why-not? dept
Congress has been working on a federal "shield" law that that allows journalists to protect their sources. This is an important concept, and many states already have local laws on that front. Unfortunately, as the Senate was working on its version of the bill, it's apparently decided that the law should only apply to professional journalists who make their living that way. If you happen to just write a blog post that exposes some sort of wrong, you'll have no shield protections. Or if you write for a participatory media site and blow a whistle, again, you'll have no shield protection for your sources. While not all that surprising (do you really think our Senators understand the value of participatory journalism), it's still disappointing.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: amateur, journalists, professional, senate, shield law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow, smart anon
I'm voting PP in 10 and so is everyone I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow, smart anon
The government has stopped serving the people a long time ago and we need to make it VERY CLEAR who they serve, WE THE PEOPLE, not them the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wow, smart anon
--Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wow, smart anon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarify?
Really? How does one define what is "making a living"?
For instance, what if the person is a relatively new journalist with no other source of income but for a small newspaper paying him/her, and that income amounts to $10k per year? Is that really "making a living"?
Or how about the owner of a major news website that makes a significant amount of money in their endeavors, but that owner makes MORE money from other sources (say, a financial reporter who is also a financial consultant)? He isn't making his living from being a journalist, though he's making a great deal of money doing it.
Or is it just as simple as anyone making money from their journalism is protected? In which case you just pay your blog journalists a penny per piece and call it a day.
When are people going to realize that laws need to be a combination of simple and clearly defined, or they don't work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarify?
Here you go dark helmet:
This is their definition of Professional Journalist. And Like Dan Gillmor stated under the original article, this is clearly just a trap for a licensing system. Just think, another large organization you have to pay to be a part of their "club" and if you don't they will have you arrested/fined/banished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarify?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clarify?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's Lobbyists for you!
And I say "Senators" because I really mean the lobbyists that are plaguing our country's Legislative system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's Lobbyists for you!
No no no... LAWS are what's plaguing our country's Legislative system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's Lobbyists for you!
But wait... aren't the laws created by the lobbyists? It would seem like the ol' Chicken & the Egg conundrum/paradox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's Lobbyists for you!
I say "Yes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes indeedy
Obviously, they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its all politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Yes indeedy
I'm pretty sure we're talking about this guy
http://media.photobucket.com/image/Chuck%20Schumer/Attaturk/chuck_schumer_AlexWong3.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense.
Those who make their living as an investigative journalists should be afforded privileges that any Joe Blow with a video camera and a pad of paper should not.
Is this any different from practicing medicine, law or even a Private Investigator without proper licensing? No. Why? Because you can do damage with a pen.
Also, name 5 amateur journalist stories that NEED to protect their sources, then, answer me why THOSE SAME sources would not go to a major media outlet to break their story.
And...go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense.
How about you answer me why the government needs to be granting certain people special "privileges"? How does the government have the power to give a small group these "privileges" over another group simply out of favoritism? Where in the mandates of our government does it state that one of the purposes of government is to "give some people special privileges at the expense of others"? Why is the government even involved in this situation to begin with?
I guess a professional journalist who sits in an office and reads and reprints press releases and copies & pastes stories from blogs they found through Google needs special "privileges" because they AREN'T out in the communities with "a video camera and a pad of paper". I guess the special "privileges" are designed so that those who are actually doing reporting work can't be protected because a major multi-national company isn't paying corporate taxes for them to be "professional", but those who don't do the real work need their jobs protected because no one's buying what they're reselling anymore. That makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense.
However, your second request is built upon a faulty assumption--that only those sources/information deemed worthy of attention by major news outlets is a legitimate story. You are presuming that major media outlets don't filter what they report on, or that even if they do, they do so with the purest of intentions.
The only way the truth will be free, is if it is free to be unleashed by any single human being, not only by those with corporate and revenue-based interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense.
Freedom of speech can be damaging against those who act unethically but that is no excuse to restrict freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense.
Take this example of where anonymity was removed
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090922/1611326286.shtml
This person offered us insight into how patents were being abused, such insight is relevant to everyone because it is the government that grants patents on behalf of society and society has every right to know how these patents are being used.
Another example is
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090917/0354056223.shtml
The scare mongering you bring up are just a bunch of lies, mostly put out by the mainstream media, to scare the naive government full of conflicts of interest into giving mainstream media an unjust unlevel playing field so that anyone who discusses an issue that disagrees with the status quo can be fired from their employer and otherwise be punished. The whole purpose has nothing to do with damage caused by a pen.
"Also, name 5 amateur journalist stories that NEED to protect their sources, then, answer me why THOSE SAME sources would not go to a major media outlet to break their story. "
A: As has already been shown, mainstream media may censor certain information or they may discuss them with a certain bias while censoring certain sides of the issue. Another example of this is here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/monsanto-forced-fox-tv-to_b_186428.html
Also, perhaps the person doesn't like mainstream media and prefers a specific blog because mainstream media turns everything into their intellectual property and the person reporting does not want what they report on to be intellectual property.
"answer me why THOSE SAME sources would not go to a major media outlet to break their story. "
You are basically admitting that your whole attempt is an attempt to give mainstream media an unlevel playing field that they DO NOT deserve. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anyone and you know it. You want everything that gets reported to be someones intellectual property and perhaps the people who turn in the information want an outlet that they can turn in their stories anonymously where the stories are no ones intellectual property. But of course that is not what you want, what you want, and the TRUE reason you want mainstream media to get the story and to have no competitors get the story, is exactly because you want mainstream media to hold the intellectual property rights over the story so then you can complain about how blogs parasite off of mainstream media when in fact it's mainstream media that has forced people not to be able to send stories to blogs to be released without intellectual property so that blogs can self sustain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't makes sense.
I have voiced issues which may or may not have been as a result of someone providing me with information. Those issues have become laws and changed the course of billion dollar businesses. If I were to blab about my sources then I doubt I would get anyone talking to me and you would still be being reamed without even knowing it.
I think you need to reassess your position in a calm and rational manner and try and put yourself in a neutral position. Your position will look even worse from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doesn't makes sense.
because we live in a corporocracy where only the rich and the powerful should have the pen and everyone else should have no power and we are to succumb to tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to become a "professional" journalist....
1. Buy the magazine Journalist's Club
2. Look for the form on the last page
3. Fill it out and send with a $100 check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to become a "professional" journalist....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to become a "professional" journalist....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to become a "professional" journalist....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the First Amendment
Example: If I were to reveal a news story to you by word-of-mouth, technically, that instantly qualifies me as an amateur journalist. If you were to then ask me about my source, I am well within my Constitutional rights to stand there silently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the First Amendment
I seem to recall amnesty being used to remove any possibility of incrimination, and thus take away the fifth amendment as an option. But I'm not sure if that's Hollywood jurisprudence or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone wants to post anonymously why reveal their identity unless the purpose of doing so is to open the door for retaliation which defeats the purpose of having freedom of speech.
and people should be able to post their news to non mainstream media outlets, like blogs, anonymously without having to fear that their news story will turn into someones intellectual property. They may want blogs to discuss the issue without having corrupt mainstream media sources calling the blogs parasites and going after everyone for intellectual property breach and what not. and people should ABSOLUTELY be given that option, to say what they want to say on the Internet for everyone to see anonymously without having what they say be anyone's intellectual property.
This is the MAIN thing I'm concerned about, that people be given that option and the mainstream media wants to unethically take that option away from the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amateur journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]