Sens. Feinstein And Durbin Specifically Try To Carve Citizen Journalists Out Of Shield Law
from the protecting-journalists-or-journalism dept
There was a lot of reasonable concern earlier this year when a much needed federal shield law proposal appeared to ignore participatory journalists and only cover those employed by major media companies. After people complained about this we were relieved to see Senators Chuck Schumer and Arlen Specter change the bill to cover participatory journalism as well. As they realized such a law should be about protecting acts of journalism not some arbitrary definition of journalists.Unfortunately, it looks like some other Senators disagree. Karl Bode alerts us to the news that Senators Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin are specifically trying to limit the bill to only covering major media journalists. It's hard to see any rationale for such a move, but it does seem rather obnoxious. One of the fundamental points of a strong media is the ability to protect their sources. Without that, it's that much harder for the media to actually hold anyone accountable, since sources will be more afraid to reveal important information. Why would Senators Feinstein and Durbin be so against protecting the process of journalism?
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: chuck durbin, dianne feinstein, journalism, participatory journalism, shield law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
School newspapers?
Scary stuff and it makes you wonder what lobbyist hit up Senators Feinstein and Durbin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: School newspapers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same reason any politician would like potential journalism sources to be afraid of revealing information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's also talk about the potential to make stuff up and attribute it to someone else, a "secret source". Really, that source is just those funny voices in your head, but as a journalist, you have a right to protect your sources. So you end up in a situation where anyone can be a citizen journalist, report what the voices in their heads say (even if those voices are wrong) and never be liable for anything they say.
The simple concept of writing a blog isn't enough to qualify anyone as a journalist. Mike, even you have clearly admitted that you aren't a journalist, just someone starting discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Let's also talk about the potential to make stuff up and attribute it to someone else, a 'secret source'"
is also stupid once you realize that major media journalists already do this.
How would you define major media journalists? Must they work for Fox news or make more than $50,000/y? Must they be full time employed by a major media outlet? How do you define that? Since the government made the damn law they must define a line (and we see how good they are at that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, you mean like "mainstream" "journalist" Glenn Beck?
"People are saying..." (insert bogus anti-liberal claim here)
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To protect journalists employed by corporations which make large campaign donations.
Why would Senators Feinstein and Durbin be so against protecting the process of journalism?
Obviously Feinstein and Durbin do not give a rat's ass about protecting journalism, only about protecting the business of journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not paying attention, because that's the same wrong question everyone else is asking. The RIGHT question is: what defines journalism?
Well, the 1a and 2a definitions, or those most common, are:
1a -- the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
and
2a -- writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
Note that nowhere in those definitions is there anything about accreditation or officiality. The first says that you need to be collecting or editing news to be reported to others through some undefined entity called "the media". Note also that it does NOT say "mass media", so I believe most would agree that the internet and blog sites would qualify as a part of "the media".
What's interesting about the 2nd definition is that there is no requirement of actually being published. It must only be DESIGNED for publication in a newspaper or magazine (or webzine?).
Which brings us directly back to the point I originally wanted to make: Senators Feinstein and Durbin do not understand the English language. Ergo, they are likely illegal immigrants, and I believe they should be impeached immediately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The whole process is something that needs to be ongoing, not done on occassion.
As a side note, journalists tend to try to get both sides of the story, or at least to make a passing attempt at checking facts. Most blog writers (Mike included) are more often interested in expressing some misdirected moral outrage or to call someone out without actually checking the facts. The difference, while hard to put in words, is clear and obvious - it comes back to intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, they don't, and that's entirely the point. We're not talking verbs here, we're talking nouns. We're defining journalism the noun, and nowhere is there anything in the definitions about regularity or consistency.
"Just collecting and editing the news on a single day doesn't make you a journalist"
I completely agree with you on that, but if you're editing the news, it also doesn't follow that you're just "a reader". But again, this is missing the point entirely. Someone who isn't a journalist CAN engage in acts of journalism, and acts of journalism ought to be protected.
"The whole process is something that needs to be ongoing, not done on occassion."
Where are you getting that from? Certainly not the common definitions in Merriams-Webster dictionary....
"As a side note, journalists tend to try to get both sides of the story"
BWAH???!!!
"or at least to make a passing attempt at checking facts."
Er?
"Most blog writers (Mike included) are more often interested in expressing some misdirected moral outrage..."
Like your misdirected outrage at their outrage?
"...or to call someone out without actually checking the facts."
Okay, I read this blog regularly, and I seem to remember a TON of facts here. I may not always agree with the stats or analysis, and I may even occasionally turn up my nose at some of the evidence provided by what I would consider biased parties on both sides of the debate, but to try to pass this site off as mere factless conjecture based on nothing but tugging other's emotions is laughable in the extreme.
As my own side note, this site was a lot more fun when you called yourself Weird Harold. In fact, that was going on about a year ago or so. In the spirit of the holidays, won't you go back to using your old moniker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once every second?
Twice every second?
Three times every second?
Once every year?
Once every two years?
If you give a definition make it specific and not broad. You can make a lot of journalists not journalists by saying "All the time" and you can make a lot of non journalists journalists by saying "All the time". The definition is flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It should be the full time profession, not a hobby or sideline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too ambiguous. How do you define it? There are part-time jobs, seasonal jobs, per contract jobs, temping, etc. etc. etc.
"That doesn't mean writing opinions (like Mike does here) but actually working in a news environment,"
So editorialists deserve no protection at all?
"It should be the full time profession, not a hobby or sideline."
This never made any sense to me. Why are we still trying to protect journalists instead of journalism? There's too much ambiguity in protecting your "full time professional journalists". How long do they have to have been full time before they get protection? After all, a rookie reporter who has only worked 3 days might be on the full time roster, but he could quit the next day and never work a full week. Or who gets to decide what companies are accredited journalism providers, such that their reporters are protected? The government? That doesn't work. The mass media execs? That doesn't work either.
The point is that this keeps getting messy as soon as we start trying to define journalists rather than journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you even have to be paid? What about those unemployed individuals trying to work for a news organization that do digging/reporting on their own to show their chops?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some of my favorite Opinion Columnists in actual printed Newspapers only do it as a part time job! And they are Opinion writers, not much different than bloggers on the web. So does it make them professional journalists, just because their opinions get published in a major metropolitan newspaper and not a blog site?
Come on AC or maybe Weird Harold, grow a few brain cells when making an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's pretty neat that you can just make such a statement and it's automatically true.
I guess that's the same as how volunteer firefighters are not firefighters, and people who fly their own planes every once in a while are not pilots.
Open source developers certainly aren't software developers...
Do internet trolls have to do it full time for them to fit the definition too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason this rubs me the wrong way is because when my uncle was murdered, the reason they caught the people who did it was because the cops followed a line of "rumors". Because my uncle worked in retail, many of those rumors were being passed by people who were in high school or college and could easily have said "I'm writing a piece for the school newspaper, I'm a journalist, leave me alone." Now, I doubt that would have happened, because a lot of those kids were just kids and not the type of total scumbag that would do that kind of thing, but still.
The protection of privilege should not be left up for grabs. It needs to be concretely defined, not because it's important to limit the protection (which it is), but to make it clear to those who wish to step forward who they can confide in. If you don't clearly define who's a journalist, then it's hard for people to determine who to trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and why not?
"It needs to be concretely defined, not because it's important to limit the protection"
But ONLY because it needs to be defined in a way that gives big media an unearned, STOLEN unlevel playing field. You, nor big media, actually believe the absolute nonsense that you spew.
"but to make it clear to those who wish to step forward who they can confide in."
No, you are artificially making some people who could otherwise be confined a source that can't be confined in as much by creating a law that compels them to reveal their source for no good reason other than the fact that they're not a "professional" journalist.
"Likewise if the person I tell isn't a regular reporter, him revealing me as a source is no less likely to cause my distrust in him because there was never a basis for trust in the first place."
What if it's someone you know and hence you trust them based on your prior knowledge of them? and what's wrong with him NOT revealing the source vs a "journalist" not doing so?
"Why should someone who doesn't publish on a consistent basis be protected by shield?"
Why should those who publish on a consistent basis be any more protected?
"If I tell a random person on the street my involvement in a secret government plot then I have no expectation of privilege."
the difference is that with the random person you don't intend for them to reveal the information to the public in general, whereas with the journalist and even the one time journalist, you do. Perhaps you're telling the random person to either get them involved in some way or to change their behavior in a way that favors your actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference here is that the line of rumors does not consist of someone intentionally broadcasting the information on an information distribution system with the intent for the general public to read it in hopes to get some answers. In your case the questioning happened before the any alleged journalist actually wrote about it and was not the cops knowing who to ask and get answers from was not based on the publication of a journal but was based on prior knowledge to the journal and happened prior to any publication by these high school kids.
But journalism, and public whistle blowing, should be protected even if the person is not a journalist. Often times a non journalist does have something important to share with the public, which is why they are making an effort to go out of their way from what they normally do to report it, because they feel what they have to say is important. and if it's important enough for them to feel that way then it should be protected once posted because it's probably important to others as well. There is no need for the government to promote journalism as an industry, it should promote journalism as an endeaver to public knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
redefinition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: redefinition
(Note: Generally, every time somebody says "let's make a law..." or "there should be a law..." there really shouldn't be. We've too many laws already.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: redefinition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: redefinition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: redefinition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: redefinition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are amendments after the first.
I am not a lawyer, but doesn't the fifth amendment mean they don't have to reveal anything about the crime they committed, website or no website? In a criminal trial, the defendant may take the stand but doesn't have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are amendments after the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few, or hundreds of thousands
We must not allow any legal division to be drawn between ordinary citizens who report the news and journalists, because there is no real difference between the two that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cui Bono
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minor Correction
Good job representing, Dickie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I just sent to Feinstein
Drop your proposed amendment to the Federal Journalism Shield Law!
S. Feinstein:
You have recently sponsored an amendment with S. Durbin that would strip non-professional journalists of the same level of protections that are enjoyed by paid journalists working for 'recognized' media companies.
Consider the citizen of a small town who is investigating fraud at the level of their local city council. What are the chances that an 'officially recognized' media company or 'officially licensed journalist' will cover the story? If that citizen then writes up her findings on her own weblog, should she be denied the same protections?
With the rapid shift of the work of journalism from old-media to new-media, it is more important than ever to be inclusive. We need more people, not fewer, to consider themselves journalists and to be confident that they will not be safe in the ability to publish - via email, on a personal weblog, via Facebook, and Twitter - their findings.
Please drop support of your amendment! You should be looking for ways to promote citizen participation in the world around them, not thwarting it.
Regards,
Jason L. Buberel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cid=N00007364&cycle=2010&t ype=C&newMem=N&recs=0
No entry for Publishing or News, so are those contributions lumped under Lawyers/Lobbyists or TV/Movies/Music?
Durbin:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00004981& cycle=2010&type=I&newMem=N&recs=100
#1 contributor (actually, employees and/or PAC, not the firm itself) is associated with a law firm dealing with Mesothelioma/Asbestos, IP, Prescription Drugs, Business Litigation, Benzene. No possible connection with journalism of any sort. Quote from their site (http://www.simmonsfirm.com/): "At the Simmons firm, our copyright lawyers are focused on helping individuals, start-up companies and small to medium-sized businesses protect their ideas through our dedicated copyright services such as IP lawsuits. Our group is staffed with copyright lawyers who have extensive experience in all aspects of intellectual property infringement & copyrights."
Nope, no conflict of interest or outside influence there. Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Keep it moving. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 Minutes didn't walk into a half-dozen ACORN offices and prove that it's a taxpayer-funded criminal enterprise. Dateline didn't uncover that Obama's "green jobs czar" was a self-proclaimed Communist and 9/11 Truther. The NY Times readily exposed anti-terrorism programs and compromised national security and collected a Pulitzer Prize for their (what would've been called in a sane age) treason, but now refuses to cover the ClimateGate scandal in which hackers blew the lid off the multi-trillion-dollar worldwide governance scheme called "global warming" because to do so would require abandoning their statist agenda and religious belief in ManBearPig.
The media is dying because savvy readers have realized that they are being lied to and who wants to shell out hard-earned money for worthless propaganda? Readers are leaving and advertisers have no use for papers without readers. If the media had only done their jobs - report the 5 Ws instead of declaring jihad on Dubya - and not tried to "change the world," they wouldn't be in their predicament. Trying to scare citizen reporters into silence by refusing to protect them under the Constitution is just the statists trying to maintain their grip on power by making sure the sheeple only get approved propaganda lest they start waking up to the scam. To paraphrase Bryant in "Blade Runner": "If you're not approved press, you're little people."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senator Feinstein is a FASCIST WORM The World Can Do Without...
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Gun_Control.htm
"..Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons."
http://home.nra.org/#/home
;()
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
major media companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ever happened to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What ever happened to...
Have you ever read any of the papers published by our Founding Fathers? They are downright dastardly. I say it is time to bring that type of journalism back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That whole bit ended when the supreme court started to overrule and ignore the Constitution.Thanks to those baseless decisions we now have the Department of Education, as an example of failure, and pretty much the whole federal government infrastructure. Silly rabbit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judiciary Committee Update
http://judiciary.senate.gov/
it was "held over".
interestingly though, the knuckleheads did vote on and approve an amendment by senator spector (amandment hen09b24) defining in sec. 10(2)(a) a covered person (according to the legislation)
essentially blocking fienstein. she's a crafty witch though and she'll be back.
i'd like to think that this vermonter calling chairman leahy's office this morning made a difference......nah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]