Are bloggers Press?


"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."
I've several issues with this law, starting with how that term "journalist" is defined. Emphasis added.

An updated version of the Free Flow of Information Act (PDF), introduced earlier this week, gives a more expansive definition to the concept of a "covered person" under the law than any of Congress' previous attempts at so-called "reporter's shield" legislation.

"The intent is that bloggers who are regularly involved in newsgathering and reporting, within the scope of that definition, would be entitled to the privilege," Rep. Rick Boucher, one of the House bill's primary sponsors, said in a Friday telephone interview with CNET News.com.

While earlier versions based such eligibility on ties to specific media institutions--that is, entities that publish newspapers, books, magazines and periodicals "in print or electronic form," along with their broadcast and wire-service counterparts--the new bill offers protection to anyone engaged in journalism.

The bill defines journalism as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

The bill's authors are "not attempting to extend this privilege to everyone in our society," Boucher told CNET News.com. The bill's language, however, does not actually require that a covered person do journalism as an occupation or even on a regular basis. When asked how precise distinctions would be made, Boucher said it will ultimately be up to the courts to interpret and refine the bill's definition.

There is nothing in the entire United States Constitution that gives Congress or anyone else the power to define what "press" is. Certainly it goes against centuries of tradition. On the face of it, this looks like a really good law. Certainly I have argued before (also here, be sure to check out the comments) that bloggers are press, inaccuracies, non-professionalism, and mistakes non-withstanding. Remember the idea of the professional, unbiased reporter is a Twentieth Century fiction that was more public relations than anything else. The best reporters have always had a bias, but when they practiced advocacy journalism they were a lot more honest.

The interesting bit is that the Bush Administration wants to limit the protections for bloggers. Once again, emphasis added.

"The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."

Justice Department opposition has bedeviled Congress throughout its numerous attempts in recent years to enact federal shield laws. Supporters say such legislation is needed in light of high-profile cases involving New York Times reporter Judith Miller and what free-press advocacy groups characterize as a sharp rise in subpoenas to reporters in recent years.

Laws recognizing some form of "reporter's privilege" already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia--but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there's no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs.

Of course we trust the Bush Administration to tell the truth on this subject, right?

Right.

More to the point, notice how this once again shrouds the government in secrecy. According to the Administration, you shouldn't be able to report on the facts and failures of the government without a license.

Which just might be issued by the government.

This is why government has no business defining who is press and who is not.

Hat tip Dyre Portents.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - June 16, 2007 at 01:29 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved