Sen. Feinstein During 'Shield' Law Debate: 'Real' Journalists Draw Salaries
from the protection-based-on-exclusivity...-what-a-wonderful-idea dept
Legislators are still trying to put together a national "shield" law for journalists (this is the third such effort at a national level) and, as usual, are bogged down in a semantic debate about who should qualify for these protections. Despite "freedom of the press" being hardwired into the system and the fact that a government effort to protect journalists from its own actions (seeking to identify whistleblowers and sources in order to punish them or shut them up) lies somewhere between "ironic" and "disingenuous," the pursuit of a credible "shield" law continues.
The bill's definition of "journalist" seems straightforward enough.
The bill defines a journalist as a person who has a "primary intent to investigate events and procure material" in order to inform the public by regularly gathering information through interviews and observations.It also adds this stipulation, which is a bit more troublesome.
The person also must intend to report on the news at the start of obtaining any protected information and must plan to publish that news.I can see this stipulation working against whoever the government feels is worthy of the title "journalist." News develops. It seldom has a distinct starting point. Of course, if someone is a journalist, it stands to reason that they're always "planning" to publish their findings. But that might be a lot harder to prove when the government starts slinging subpoenas.
If someone sends a tip to a journalist, it may not be immediately evident that it is newsworthy. It might be some time before it's determined to be important, newsworthy and its source in need of protection. It's a strange stipulation and one that seems to poke some compromising holes in the "shield."
But onto the "who's really a journalist" argument. Some elected officials feel the language in the bill isn't specific enough. One in particular, Dianne Feinstein, repeated the stupid but inevitable phrase that always accompanies discussions related to shield laws:
Feinstein suggested that the definition comprise only journalists who make salaries, saying it should be applied just to "real reporters."This is nothing new for Feinstein, who's (along with Sen. Dick Durbin) previously made the argument that acts of journalism can only be performed by major news agencies, cutting everyone else out of the protective loop. This is a protective move based partially on ignorance and partially on the reality that major news networks are easier to control, seeing as most aren't willing to give up access to the Beltway by pissing off its residents.
Sadly, this sort of reactionary ignorance isn't limited solely to government representatives. This same sort of statement has been made by published authors to demean the self-published and by old school journalists to demean bloggers, serial Tweeters and pretty much everyone not associated with a sinking masthead. Whenever someone assumes they're capable of determining who is or isn't a real whatever, they're usually speaking from a position of privilege, one that can only be maintained as long as the status remains quo.
The same goes for government officials arguing over the definition of "journalist." It's someone who performs the act of journalism. It's as simple as that. But if you accept this definition, then you put the government at a greater "risk" of not being able to pursue and punish those who expose its wrongdoing. Feinstein makes this governmental fear explicit in another comment.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., wondered whether it could be used to provide protections to employees of WikiLeaks, an organization that allows anonymous sources to leak information to the public.Two things to note: One, the government would hate to see people like Snowden or Manning go unpunished because someone at Wikileaks was able to deflect subpoenas and court orders with these protections. Second, this isn't just a government push -- the news industry itself has expressed a willingness to sacrifice Wikileaks in order to expedite passage of a shield law.
"I’m concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are not reporters at all," she said.
It seems rather unlikely the government would extend this protection to entities like Wikileaks (especially not with major news agencies on board with selling out Wikileaks, etc.), but at least Sen. Schumer pointed out that Feinstein's belief that "real" equals "drawing a salary" was a very ignorant take on the current reality.
"The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that," Schumer said. "But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill."If this bill is ever going to provide real protection for journalists, it will first have to recognize that journalism isn't defined by the journalist's employer, paycheck or association with a large media company. It's an act and it can be performed by nearly anyone. More importantly, the bill should be equally as concerned with building in strong consequences for government actions that undermine this protection. Without these, entities like the DOJ will hardly be dissuaded from using "unofficial channels" to seize phone records or trace email conversations in order to hunt down protected sources.
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: dianne feinstein, journalism, journalists, shield law
Reader Comments
The First Word
“A little history lesson...
There was once a man, several hundred years ago. He drew his salary not through journalism, but as a customs agent (and occasionally he would help help design bridges, candles).Then one day, he wrote a leaflet, and signed it anonymously. This leaflet was distributed widely.
According to Sen. Feinstein, this man, who did not draw a salary from journalism, did not deserve First Amendment protections for publishing his leaflet.
The man is Mr. Thomas Paine. The time was January, 1776. The leaflet was Common Sense.
And fortunately for us, Supreme Court precedent is on our side. From Lovell v. Griffin, (1938) Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote in the majority's unanimous opinion,
�The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest.�
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wage slaves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Special privilege
The word you're looking for, Senator, is "rights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Special privilege
And I�m concerned you being elected provided special privilege to your Idiotic comments and willingness to disassemble our Constitutional Rights as Citizens of the United States .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Special privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Special privilege
After all, nothing is more offensive to fascists and communists than freedom of speech and press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Special privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Special privilege
We need to abolish government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies for private and commercial use. The media is already held in a government established privileged position. That is what gives them an unfair advantage and what gives them an unfair ability to manipulate who gets elected to maintain their status quo. We need to start with abolishing these monopoly privileges and any other unfair advantages that the government gives some people over others. This includes Dianne Feinstein's attempts to give certain people shield laws over others. No, everyone should be on a level playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Special privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freedom of the Press means that the press should be free of government interference, being intended to act as a watchdog on the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Shawn H Corey on Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:20pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never go full retard.
She won't be getting my vote ever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never go full retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never go full retard.
Again?
It's been a while that I've been voting to keep people out of office than putting people in. It's a problem with a two-party system is that you don't have to be good, just slightly less evil than the other guy.
In the last few years I've been coming to realize that who's in office doesn't matter. Whatever ambitions they had are going to be lost as they either become ineffectual and voted out, or play ball and lose sight of their original goals.
Senator Feinstein has either embittered or become senile in her years, but she no longer has empathy with her constituents, yet I don't believe anyone we elect in her stead is going to do any better. And, they'll shit all over gay rights, women's rights and religious freedoms as well, since the GOP platform requires them to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Never go full retard.
I'm not sure this is a two-party system problem. I mean, the last couple of presidential elections had candidates from multiple third parties, but every candidate was severely flawed. I still found myself trying to pick the lesser evil, just out of a larger group of fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Never go full retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Never go full retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never go full retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never go full retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JFAA by any other name
Translation: "I'm concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are simply not entitled to it due to their relative lack of wealth and social status. Those who are not government-licensed journalists might take it upon themselves to speak their minds in public fora without displaying proper respect for (and fear of retribution from) their betters."
Today it's a "shield law," but in a few years, expect to see it used against dissenters and sources of institutional embarrassment in much the same way the CFAA is today, but with much broader scope that isn't limited to just "facilitated by a computer".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JFAA by any other name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's icing for me - I'm anti-fein
Senator Feinstein, you are derelict in your duties.
The semantics of age old "press" aside, the freedom of your country is at stake and your knowledge of the potential for serious charges of breaching the founding laws of this country make you culpable.
Whistle blowers have succeeded in enlightening the public to misdeeds that are done in our name and you deign to limit and threaten any voice that succeeds in the distribution of facts because they didn't receive a paycheck from Reuters? I sincerely question your integrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little history lesson...
Then one day, he wrote a leaflet, and signed it anonymously. This leaflet was distributed widely.
According to Sen. Feinstein, this man, who did not draw a salary from journalism, did not deserve First Amendment protections for publishing his leaflet.
The man is Mr. Thomas Paine. The time was January, 1776. The leaflet was Common Sense.
And fortunately for us, Supreme Court precedent is on our side. From Lovell v. Griffin, (1938) Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote in the majority's unanimous opinion,
�The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little history lesson...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little history lesson...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People have been leaking government secrets for thousands of years, so this attitude just means that we are back to the persecution phase of the cycle.
Maybe it is a good thing, it creates value on the leaked information, it means you are putting something at risk, it means you really believe it should be leaked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing to say about the paparazzi...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing to say about the paparazzi...
The provision that protects news reporters is important for a couple of reasons:
1. News often has to be timely in order to effectively serve it's purpose. Imagine how difficult and time consuming it would be to report on a natural disaster to disseminate important information to the public if the news media had to secure permission from every individual that appeared on camera live on a scene before they could air the footage.
2. It would allow individuals to censor crucial information of public interest simply because they didn't like the fact that it was being made public or the way it was being presented.
The erroneous interpretation they use is that because a person is famous, basically anything that happens related to them is considered news confusing "in the public interest" with "what the public is interested in" so that they can say that because the public wants to know, people have the right to know even if it is in no way beneficial to the public other than a sensationalistic and/or voyeuristic intrusion of the private lives of other individuals for others' mere entertainment purposes.
The real issue is not whether the paparazzi should be considered journalists or not, it's whether what they published should be considered news or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing to say about the paparazzi...
Oh really? You are being as ignorant as Feienstein here Wally.
How do you propose to separate "gossiping paparazzi" from the "Entertainment" section of my local newspaper? You gonna base it on who their employer is like Feinstein?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are sufficient protections on the books already, except the government doesn't want to give up the convenience of spying on everyone, any where, any time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are a journalist who doesn't make a salary just create a company and pay yourself a $1/ year salary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feinstein and Boxer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drawing a salary
Having been a business owner, the "salary" for a small business owner is "whatever part of what's left over at the end of the month that you won't need for the business in the next two weeks".
Feinstein needs to get a job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could start here with a basic code of ethics, that would be a great start, and actually abide by that code.
But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could start here with a basic code of ethics, that would be a great start, and actually abide by that code.
But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here.
Censoring from IP addresses now ??? Really ethical..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Journalist:
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
Journalism:
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
Funny, seems to meet the definitions of journalism and journalist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So how exactly does profit legitimize anything? I'd really love an answer to that from people like Feinstein and her supporters. You see the same thing in other creative fields too, like photography for example. Some how a persons work is magically better if they profit monetarily from it, thus giving them the "pro" moniker, and I've never understood where people get such silly notions. The internet is full of examples where amateurs blow away the pros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody at TF has ever claimed such a thing. Feel free to prove otherwise.
"But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here."
Stating something you don't agree with does not make it untruthful or inaccurate. Constantly making such accusations without a shred of evidence kinda clashes with your demand for ethical behavior. And freedom from bias has nothing all all to do with ethics, and only an idiot would expect such a thing from an opinion blog.
"Censoring from IP addresses now ??? Really ethical.."
Please back up your fantasies with proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have citations or evidence for that, or is this just another "Wahh" Techdirt won't stop classifying my trolling spam as trolling spam!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being a lying anonymous shitbag now??? Really ethical...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad to hear im not an accountant because I'm unemployed
My Former Bookkeeping business was not real accounting
Im not an accountant despite my degree.
My Grandfather was not a WW2 Veteran (Like most, he was not in the military long enough for a pension.)
John Kerry is not a veteran (same reason)
My mother is not a licenced masseuse (she's freelance)
Those non-profit lawyers and doctors without borders should probably get their stationary updated.
Ect.
My point? A salary or an established firm mean nothing.
Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, then the esteemed senator will want to define journalist only for companies that actually make money. Fortunately, due to the state of modern journalism, there will be almost no journalists left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is news?
Then you change the description of the so-called news that so-called 'journalists' (who are paid to do it) report: the royal baby doings, and other heavy-duty trivia that passes for 'news' these days.
That's called entertainment and frivolity by real journalists, and there aren't that many of the serious ones left. Don't even think of counting in PBS, because they've sold out like their brethren.
Yeah, being paid by a big corporation to report absolute garbage is being a real journalist, unlike those on the Internet that report all that bad stuff, like Edward Snowden's thing, the NSA's doings, and other really stupid stuff.
By that measure, Mike and crew at Techdirt night not be considered 'real journalists' either-they write a blog, not for a newspaper/magazine.
Or anyone who writes in the ethersphere-like HuffPost, Salon, and the Daily Beast. Guess the definition of journalism can't be changed now, can it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flame bait
Apparently, anybody who can tap two keys in a row can call it a blog and therefore has earned the title 'journalist' or 'press.' Since that is everybody, I'd say those words no longer have any meaning. I doubt that is how the founding fathers thought of 'Freedom of Press.'
Plenty of three word trolls to beat on Feinstein. Which commenter has actually proposed a better definition for 'journalist'? 27 comments - not one with a better proposal! Just everyone piling on the "I don't like her definition" stack - oh that helps the discussion.
So apparently you all qualify yourselves as press now.... head on down to Giant Stadium tomorrow and demand your press pass.
BTW: I'm a taxi-driver, I've never charged anybody though
I'm a lawyer, I don't get paid, I just ruminate
I'm a football star, just the Pro's don't recognize it.
I must be a journalist, never made a nickel though - but if you send me something on Paypal - Nancy F will recognize me :-)
Even if no editor, press, publication, on-line service, et cetera, has recognized/paid/published someone as a writer, investigator, or employee, you apparently are ready to recognize their self proclamation of journalist. If so what is the meaning of the word?
JF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame bait
Let me take your football analogy.
Anyone can play football - and when they do they are called a footballer and are protected by the laws of the game.
On those occasions when professional teams play against amateurs (as in the FA cup - I'm British so I'm talking proper football here) you do not see the professionals having a different set of rules from the amateurs.
Of course that does not mean that everyone who ever plays football is a professional - let alone a "star" - but it does make them - during the time when they are actually playing - a "footballer".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame bait
Seems to me you are what you are criticizing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame bait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame bait
Your problem is that you think we need a new definition. We don't. Professional journalists are not the only ones who have freedom of the press - all Americans do, regardless of their profession, and all Americans deserve freedom of the press protections.
In contrast, there's no "freedom of the taxi driver". There's no "freedom of the lawyer". There's no "freedom of the football player".
But there is freedom of assembly, so you don't need to be some licensed professional who draws a salary to hang out in groups. And there is freedom of religion, so you don't need to be a licensed priest or rabbi to perform religious rites. And there is freedom of the press, so you don't need to be a licensed professional in order to disseminate news or publish material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame bait
How about from the article you are commenting on:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame bait
Actually, this is exactly how the founding fathers thought of the freedom of the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it may well also give the person(s) the time and the chance to stop the something, cover the something, move the something or prepare a statement to, in their minds, justify the something. whichever may be used, the opportunity to reveal 'secret goings on' would be removed. this is the main reason for adding in ridiculous sections to a bill so as to stop things like the Manning and Snowden episodes from getting out to the public. just a 'legal way' of allowing the government to carry on doing whatever it wants to do against it's own citizens with no backlash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real Threat
Except for the "while government activities including widespread surveillance and secretive activities are hard to take given that we are supposed to be living in a free society" every other statement could be interpreted to either have terrorists _or_ the NSA as the "bad guys" or "threats". Bravo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of the press means that EVERYONE is allowed to engage in mass communication. Everyone is allowed to have their own modern equivalent of the printing press, and the government can't decide who is or is not "legitimate".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of the Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gallows
...in my not-so-humble opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now we have to register our journalists too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalism
Finstine; you are a stupid fucking bitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is my problem with the idea of a "shield" law
Journalists should not have any privileges that other citizens don't have. Any shield law should apply to everyone equally: it should cover the act of journalism, not some made-up new class of elites called "journalists".
If a shield law requires designating who is or is not a journalists, then I think it's better to do without the shield law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is my problem with the idea of a "shield" law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amateur and professional
That is a phenomenon I've been enjoying come to light. Amateur and Professional were often used to denote degree of expertise, but a friend of mine pointed out Amateur means for the love, and enthusiasts are not only often good at what they do but often create masterpieces that propel a craft forward.
I've since made a point to use the terms novice and expert to indicate skill, knowing a few highly-skilled amateurs in their respective choice pursuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amateur and professional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amateur and professional
The captain of the England cricket team was for many years required to be an amateur. Similarly the Olympic movement excluded professional athletes - until the dodgy practices of America and the Eastern block rendered this untenable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have a lot of unreal Senators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UP YOURS, BITCH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, how else could one pass off complete fiction and propaganda as "news?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is about the value of the news reported
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't touch me there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]