Was Jeff Gannon a journalist?

[ProSense]

16 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	1 (6%)
	No
	14 (88%)
	Not sure
	0 (0%)
	Who the hell is Jeff Gannon?
	1 (6%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[gopiscrap]

1. no he was an asshat

[Berlum]

16. Gannon was an embodiment of Republicon Family Values

A compleat Republicon, he was well loved by other Republicons because of it. But a journalist, no. He was that peculiar Republicon creature: a pompous and overpaid propaganda pimp.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. I remember that dude.

Good times, good times.

[sarcasmo]

3. Takes me back to a simpler time on D/U.

[madrchsod]

143. ain't that the truth...

[Electric Monk]

4. I sense this is a loaded question, and you're going to ask the No voters "well then, what about..."

person X? Why are they a journalist if Gannon wasn't?"

[edbermac]

5. He looks like a journalist

But what do I know?

[Brother Buzz]

6. Just because he was issued one-day press passes for nearly two years

instead of a bona fide congressional press pass doesn't mean he wasn't a genuine Journo, SO STOP SAYING THAT!

[Recursion]

7. He had a column in the Blade

So I have to go with "yes"

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Just goes to show anyone can call themselves a journalist.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. He was a tool, but he most assuredly had White House press credentials.

Bloggers deserve no protection because Gannon.

It's good to know what the next attack vector will be, if also a little nauseating.

[Iggo]

10. Yes....

....and so much more.

[xfundy]

11. He was servicing Rove.

And, having said that, I have to go throw up.

[libodem]

32. I always thought that

Confirmation is mine at last. I'm going with it.

[Lars39]

146. Nah, my money's on Dubya,with his bald head fetish

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. tou·ché - . (in fencing) used as an acknowledgment of a hit by one's opponent.

•used as an acknowledgment during a discussion of a good or clever point made at one's expense by another person

Or frankly whether he is or is not - I would not allow the government the power to decide whether he is or is not.

[Union Scribe]

13. I don't know yet, Feinstein hasn't replied to my email.

I'll let you know what the official-type answer is, settling the matter once and for all.

[reddread]

14. definitely not

a spin doctor propagandist.

[randome]

15. Excellent point!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

17. He was a GOP plant...

...a tool of fascism.

[madokie]

18. I think it was determined he was a call boy

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Well, obviously he can't be a journalist if we don't approve of him politically. DUH!

Just look at some of the posts in this thread. He's not even allowed to be gay without that being a source of ridicule. All who fall into the disfavor of The Party shall be denied their human and legal considerations. All right thinking people accept this.

[randome]

28. Huh? How do 'human and legal considerations' come into this?

The subject is journalism. Outside of what the Constitution defines, why should a prostitute be allowed more privileges than the rest of us? Gannon no more deserved a press pass than you or I.

Besides, all this nonsense is irrelevant since the bill being considered is how to extend journalistic Shield laws, not deny extra privileges to anyone.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. A press pass is not a device for consitutional blessing. It's for WH security.

Just wait until some GOPer starts harassing progressive bloggers with malicious prosecutions and it would almost be comical. I almost wish they would do it just to see the reactions from this mob.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. What would the sheild law do to change Gannon's status, declared by the WH as it was?

Would the WH no longer be able to grant a pass to him? If not, what's the point of your question?
Do you think 'journalist' means 'writer with whom we agree'?

[woo me with science]

22. Thank you. What an incredibly slimy and manipulative OP.

You can always tell the worst propaganda, because it only makes its point through insinuation; it doesn't dare speak it openly.

Whatever anyone's opinion of Gannon, that is not a reason to trash the Constitution and permit Dianne Feinstein, or anyone in government, the power to decree who is and who is not a journalist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3702583

[ProSense]

25. "Whatever anyone's opinion of Gannon" What's your opinion?

"What an incredibly slimy and manipulative OP."

What a lame, deceptive and nasty attempt at deflection.

Was Gannon a journalist?

Can you answer that?

[Uncle Joe]

40. No less so than Chuck Todd but then again Todd gets paid so I guess that makes all the difference?

[Mojorabbit]

136. I agree. Slimy, manipulative, and downright creepy. A new low. nt

[ProSense]

137. You comment is bizarre.

It is.

[Puglover]

36. "Slimy"

Perfect.

[Marr]

43. As usual. /nt

[Luminous Animal]

23. Exactly. That is why allowing government to define journalist is bullshit.

[ProSense]

24. Is Kos a journalist?

"Do you think 'journalist' means 'writer with whom we agree'?"

How about Spandan?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153

Whether I "agree" with Gannon or not had nothing to do with my point, and I suspect you knew that.

[Electric Monk]

51. Yep, I was right. Nailed it with post #4, above. Probably thought you were so cute, didn't you? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

128. My first and primary question was 'what's this got to do with the sheild law' and you did your

tarantella around that one entirely. You have to answer the questions in the order they are asked of you, this is not one of your sloppy say anything centrist blogs. Just because the question leaves you stymied you don't get to pretend it was not asked and snarl back with questions of your own. If you can't play, don't try.

[Tanuki]

21. No. The fact that he was paid to portray one doesn't make him any more of a journalist

than Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman would be for portraying journalists in "All the President's Men."

[Enrique]

26. yes

and can we take this question to mean Obama is on board with the DiFi bill?

[leveymg]

27. He was a sleepover@White House shaved hardbody GOP blogger with terrible taste in men

I never read any of his work, so can't really say whether he was a "journalist."

[orpupilofnature57]

30. Misanthropic Sycophant Monster

[leveymg]

39. You should take a shower and get a blood test if you got close enough to know that about Jimmy Jeff

James Dale Guckert, or whatever his real name is.

ICK! GAG!

Thanks for going there so we don't have to!

[orpupilofnature57]

72. Is he a freind to Kkkarl ? He's an enemy to all !!!!

[orpupilofnature57]

29. Torquemada's toy boy, Kkkarls kid, new repugadet . * . *

[Agnosticsherbet]

33. At times he appeared to be a propagandist, but he worked in the field of journalism

and even if he was a despicable person who wrote hyper slanted articles and existed as a "friend of Rove" who wrote ideologically pure articles, yes he was a Journalist work for organizations exclusively on the ideological far right.

If all he ever did was hang out on Free Republic and post links to racist sexist homophobic (this would be before he was outed) diatribes on his personal journal or blog, he would not have been a journalist.

I would love to limit journalism to only legitimate news organizations, but they are wondrously (perhaps even extinct) rare now days. It would be nice to limit journalism to only those that write or broadcast articles that are ideologically neutral, but I only no one person who even comes close to that marker. Those who write or broadcast news or opinion from ideologically left sources justify my own set of political philosophies, but they are as suspect as many on the right and should be fact checked.

To me, the real source of legitimate journalism is with the many small, local internet magazines that have, for the most part, replaced local papers and news organizations. They don't have the money to report on international stories, or even national stories (unless that story is situated within their small geographic region), but these are genuine organizations who service their local communities.

[ProSense]

35. The bill,

If all he ever did was hang out on Free Republic and post links to racist sexist homophobic (this would be before he was outed) diatribes on his personal journal or blog, he would not have been a journalist.

I would love to limit journalism to only legitimate news organizations, but they are wondrously (perhaps even extinct) rare now days...To me, the real source of legitimate journalism is with the many small, local internet magazines that have, for the most part, replaced local papers and news organizations. They don't have the money to report on international stories, or even national stories (unless that story is situated within their small geographic region), but these are genuine organizations who service their local communities.

...as it stands now, from EFF:

<...>

First, the bill defines “covered journalist” instead of “journalist.” Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a “journalist” or “journalism” for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.

Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting “covered journalists,” the bill also contains a “Judicial Discretion” provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield law’s protection to any person if:

on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.

The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the law’s strict definition of “covered journalist.” Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as first–time freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an “entity,” are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfect—the “legitimate news-gathering” language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow—but it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.

Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a “salaried” employee.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140

Someone offered the following names to support independent, non-salaried journalist, and I added links to their credentials.

Amanda Marcotte
http://www.slate.com/authors.amanda_marcotte.html

Allison Kilkenny
http://www.thenation.com/authors/allison-kilkenny#

Rania Khalek
http://www.thenation.com/authors/rania-khalek#axzz2fXZUeSwM

Molly Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/molly-knefel
http://www.salon.com/writer/molly_knefel/

John Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/john-knefel

And I asked, what about Kos, is he a journalist?

How about Spandan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153

[ProSense]

37. Clearly,

"The first Amendment is not just for paid professional Obama shills."

...not everyone is up on the details of the bill as it stands now. It does not state that journalists need to be salaried or "paid professional Obama shills."

Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140

Who or what is the "press"? I think invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history is absurd.

Amendment I

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.

[reddread]

38. all the same thing, press/people/assembly/petitioning/religious freedom

"the press" and "journalists" are two different things.
in the last few years we have seen how many Bill of Rights amendments forsaken?
which ones do you think we should keep?
which ones are worthy of parsing into nothingness?

[JEFF9K]

41. We should keep the name and the story alive. Jeff Gannon - GOP's favorite male prostitute.

[PowerToThePeople]

42. I googled him

Ya, I remember that shit. He was a Bush propaganda plant. He certainly was not "the press."

But, Fox news is not "the press" either. Heck, very little of our press is actual press. It is mostly propaganda.

[Bjorn Against]

44. Yes. He was a crappy journalist, but he was a journalist.

I think when it comes to journalistic protections our definition of journalist needs to be very broad. I certainly don't approve of Gannon, but I am not going to use him as an excuse to limit Freedom of the Press.

[ProSense]

46. The bill

Yes. He was a crappy journalist, but he was a journalist.

I think when it comes to journalistic protections our definition of journalist needs to be very broad. I certainly don't approve of Gannon, but I am not going to use him as an excuse to limit Freedom of the Press.

...does not "limit Freedom of the Press." From EFF:

<...>

First, the bill defines “covered journalist” instead of “journalist.” Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a “journalist” or “journalism” for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.

Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting “covered journalists,” the bill also contains a “Judicial Discretion” provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield law’s protection to any person if:

on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.

The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the law’s strict definition of “covered journalist.” Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as first–time freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an “entity,” are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfect—the “legitimate news-gathering” language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow—but it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.

Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a “salaried” employee.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140

Someone offered the following names to support independent, non-salaried journalists, and I added links to their credentials.

Amanda Marcotte
http://www.slate.com/authors.amanda_marcotte.html

Allison Kilkenny
http://www.thenation.com/authors/allison-kilkenny#

Rania Khalek
http://www.thenation.com/authors/rania-khalek#axzz2fXZUeSwM

Molly Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/molly-knefel
http://www.salon.com/writer/molly_knefel/

John Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/john-knefel

And I asked, what about Kos, is he a journalist?

How about Spandan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153

Who or what is the "press"? Some are invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history.

Amendment I

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.

Part of the problem in this debate is conflating individual freedom of speech with journalism and the press.

You can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.

[Bjorn Against]

48. In today's world I think anyone can be the press.

Blogs reach a lot of people sometimes and a post on the internet can travel a long ways, the first amendment was written in a very broad manner and I think it should be applied in a very broad manner.

[ProSense]

49. "the first amendment was written in a very broad manner"

"In today's world I think anyone can be the press. Blogs reach a lot of people sometimes and a post on the internet can travel a long ways, the first amendment was written in a very broad manner and I think it should be applied in a very broad manner. "

So any blogger, for example Spandan (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153), is "the press" in your opinion?

Anyone "can be," but does that mean any is?

Again, anyone can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.

[Bjorn Against]

52. I think Spandan is a shitty blogger who should be rejected by all sane people

I also believe he is entitled to the full protections of the first amendment however, and if he wants to call himself a journalist I won't object. I will call him a shitty journalist, but I don't think journalistic protections should hinge on the quality of the work.

[ProSense]

54. Well,

"I also believe he is entitled to the full protections of the first amendment however, and if he wants to call himself a journalist I won't object."

...his "full protections of the first amendment" aren't affected by the label "journalist."

I don't call him a "journalist." Do you?

[Bjorn Against]

60. I generally prefer to call him a douchebag

I do consider bloggers to be journalists however so I guess I would technically consider him a journalist, but when speaking of him you are probably far more likely to hear me refer to him as a douchebag than a journalist.

[DJ13]

55. So any blogger is "the press" in your opinion?

Yes.

Think back to the time the FF's were alive, the only requirement back then to be a member of the free press was a printing press to put out news.

The 'net is today's printing press, thats really the only difference.

[ProSense]

58. So I'm "the press"?

The folks over at Free Republic are "the press"?

[NuclearDem]

62. Yes.

You analyze current events and public figures to inform other people.

While Freeperville is otherwise an abomination, members there who do similar to what you do are part of the press as well.

[DJ13]

63. You can be, yes

Do you think a national registry to qualify as a member of the press is a good idea?

Where could that lead?

[ProSense]

66. So

"You can be, yes

Do you think a national registry to qualify as a member of the press is a good idea?

...this person (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023577288) was "the press"?

Is there any objectivity and reliability inherent in the role of a journalist? Is a person pushing propaganda a "journalist"?

Retraction and Apology to Our Readers for Mint Press Article on Syria Gas Attack
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023702455

[NuclearDem]

68. Look up the term advocacy journalism.

[ProSense]

70. I know what it is. Are you saying that a person pushing propaganda is a journalist? n/t

[NuclearDem]

78. No. Propaganda and advocacy journalism are not the same thing.

There's a difference between openly acknowledging bias in journalism and reporting factually-inaccurate writings.

No, a guy who deliberately publishes inaccurate information is not a journalist. Someone who reports with a slant but is factually accurate is.

[Electric Monk]

71. Actually, I'd say that both you and Gannon would be more accurately described as propagandists

You both care more about framing and painting reality to fit your already determined narratives (Our Glorious Leader can do no wrong!). You just have different Glorious Leaders.

Real honest journalism cares more about being objective, though, first and foremost.

Lots of interesting reading on the subject can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Modern_propaganda_techniques




(if this post goes to a jury, please review my other posts in this thread first before voting on this one, thanks)

[ProSense]

73. So

Actually, I'd say that both you and Gannon would be more accurately described as propagandists

You both care more about framing and painting reality to fit your already determined narratives (Our Glorious Leader can do no wrong!). You just have different Glorious Leaders.

Real honest journalism cares more about being objective, though, first and foremost.

...you agree with me that Gannon is not a journalist, but my stating that is "propaganda" aimed at "framing and painting reality to fit" my "already determined narratives"?

I'm detecting serious bias in your comment and a lame attempt at a personal attack.

Stiil, you're right about Gannon.

[NuclearDem]

59. If they're analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest, yes.

What someone used to have to own a printing press to do, Twitter and the blogosphere allows millions of people to do.

So, yes, Spandan espouses some of the worst centrist propaganda out there, and I have no respect for him as a progressive, but his publication of analysis and research on current events makes him a member of the press.

[ProSense]

64. Wait,

"If they're analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest, yes."

...who determines "current events" or "the public interest"?

If someone starts a blog dedicated to Obama's birth certificate, is that person a "journalist"?

[NuclearDem]

65. That would be shitty tabloid journalism, but SCOTUS has repeatedly defended even that

As legitimate journalism, even if the content is low brow.

[ProSense]

69. Freedom of speech,

"That would be shitty tabloid journalism, but SCOTUS has repeatedly defended even that"

...but where did the SCOTUS defend it as "journalism"?

[NuclearDem]

75. In the first great press case in the US.

Near v Minnesota.

The importance of this immunity has not lessened. While reckless assaults upon public men, and efforts to bring obloquy upon those who are endeavoring faithfully to discharge official duties, exert a baleful influence and deserve the severest condemnation in public opinion, it cannot be said that this abuse is greater, and it is believed to be less, than that which characterized the period in which our institutions took shape. Meanwhile, the administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and
Page 283 U. S. 720
property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy consistent with constitutional privilege.

[ProSense]

81. What does that have to do with Orly Taitz specifically? n/t

[NuclearDem]

83. So you just asked what a case that defended a tabloid publisher of nonsense

Has to do with a tabloid publisher of nonsense.

[ProSense]

89. No, I asked:

"If someone starts a blog dedicated to Obama's birth certificate, is that person a "journalist"? "

By your own definition:

No. Propaganda and advocacy journalism are not the same thing.

There's a difference between openly acknowledging bias in journalism and reporting factually-inaccurate writings.

No, a guy who deliberately publishes inaccurate information is not a journalist. Someone who reports with a slant but is factually accurate is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post78

There are people who have implied that others of being "paid shill" and are now claiming anyone posting here is "the press." Seems a bit disingenuous.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Yes.

[ProSense]

47. What exactly

made him a journalist?

Talon News is an American website which became newsworthy in January 2005 because alleged irregularities in the background of its chief correspondent, known as Jeff Gannon, came to light. Gannon, born James Dale Guckert, resigned from Talon on February 8, 2005. The Talon News website was shut down February 23, 2005, but was later revived as a parody.

A virtual organization with no physical office space or newsroom, Talon News was owned by a conservative activist group called GOPUSA. Robert Eberle, the president and CEO of GOPUSA, held both titles for Talon News as well.

According to Media Matters, "Talon News apparently consists of little more than (Robert) Eberle, (Jeff) Gannon, and a few volunteers, and is virtually indistinguishable from GOPUSA.com.[1][2]

Initially, Talon News made its articles available on their website, but in September 2004,[3] moved them to GOPUSA.com and simply re-directed visitors asking for the full news articles there with the statement "This story can be found on our #1 client — GOPUSA!". In January 2005, during the controversy, Talon News removed information from its biography section regarding some of its employees, including the reporter at the center of the controversy, Jeff Gannon.[4][5][6]

The Talon News site went entirely off line on February 23, 2005, to "re-evaluate operations." Since May 2007,[7] the Talon News site has been a parody, and its pages link to The Firesign Theatre's site.[8]

- more -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talon_News

[WilliamPitt]

50. He covered the White House, got press credentials, was published, and had a readership.

Jayson Blair broke the first commandment of journalism and was rightly excommunicated...but he was still a journalist.

Gannon was and remains a joke, but is he any worse than Chuck Todd, a total hack whose journalism cred no one is allowed to dispute because he works for a cable news company?

Truthout has a number of excellent reporters who cover very important stories. Under the new definitions being bandied about, they would not qualify as "journalists."

So, yeah, Gannon was a journalist.

[ProSense]

53. Well,

"He covered the White House, got press credentials, was published, and had a readership."

...it's good to know that you're now legitimatizing Bush/Rove's fradulent process for introducing Gannon to the WH.

Talon News "published" his pieces so that made him a "journalist"?

Spandan is "published" and has a "readership." Is he a "journalist'?

[WilliamPitt]

57. "Better 100 guilty men go free than 1 be imprisoned."

Or, better that 100 derpy frauds enjoy the title of journalist than one real journalist be denied that title.

[ProSense]

61. I suppose that's

"Better 100 guilty men go free than 1 be imprisoned."

Or, better that 100 derpy frauds enjoy the title of journalist than one real journalist be denied that title.

...clever, but no one is denying "one real journalist" the title.

Simple question: Is anyone who puts anything in writing that is read by others a journalist and the press?

[WilliamPitt]

67. If what they are putting into writing is meant to inform, yes.

Let me ask you this: the Occupy activists who filmed acts of police brutality on their phones and posted them online for the world to see...are they journalists?

I say yes, and I think they'd agree.

If you disagree, what we have here is a basic impasse. I respect your opinion, but have to disagree.

[ProSense]

74. Gannon's GOPUSA propaganda disguised as news was "meant to inform"?

"Let me ask you this: the Occupy activists who filmed acts of police brutality on their phones and posted them online for the world to see...are they journalists?"

They most certainly could be, and the law doesn't automatically exclude them. Who determines what is "meant to inform"?

Is James O'Keefe a "journalist"?

Were Breitbart's tactics "journalism"?

[DJ13]

76. What kind of "jounalist" do you think a government would authorize?

The same kind of propagandist you're saying Gannon was, right?

Thats why DiFi is full of shit here.

[WilliamPitt]

80. "Who determines what is 'meant to inform'?

The government, according to this law.

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.

[ProSense]

82. Thanks for posting that, but

it doesn't address my point. You also didn't answer the questions:

Is James O'Keefe a "journalist"?

Were Breitbart's tactics "journalism"?

[WilliamPitt]

87. I already addressed that.

Gifting the title of journalist to those jackasses protects real journalists who don't have the "privilege" of working for The Machine, i.e. the "mainstream" press. The most important journalism in America right now is being done by people who decide to be journalists and get to it. No fancy job, no J-school diploma, they just go and report. Thanks to the modern printing press that is the internet, they can, and we are all better off for it.

[ProSense]

90. Yes or no

Is James O'Keefe a "journalist"?

Were Breitbart's tactics "journalism"?

[WilliamPitt]

102. Yes.

[ProSense]

104. So intentional distortions and propaganda are journalism? n/t

[WilliamPitt]

105. We're talking in circles, Pro.

Twice now I've explained why giving cover to idiots like these assures cover for other citizen journalists. You take the bad with the good, and wind up with waaaaaaaaay more good than bad.

[ProSense]

107. I don't buy that.

"Twice now I've explained why giving cover to idiots like these assures cover for other citizen journalists. You take the bad with the good, and wind up with waaaaaaaaay more good than bad."

I don't believe Jame's O'Keefe is in anyway a journalist, and rejecting his distortions has no bearing on "other citizen journalists."

In response to the question: Is anyone who puts anything in writing that is read by others a journalist and the press?

...you said, "If what they are putting into writing is meant to inform, yes."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post67

O'Keefe's goal isn't to "inform," it's to mislead.

[WilliamPitt]

109. So for the sake of thwarting one already-discredited fraud,

you're arguing for a government-controlled restriction of who does and does not get the title?

I think the baby just departed with the bathwater.

[ProSense]

145. No, you don't appear to know what's in the bill or its purpose. n/t

[notadmblnd]

56. When he wasn't pimping himself out for sexual service he wrote for a right wing rag

So technically, I guess.

[Live and Learn]

77. Yes but a very poor one. nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

79. IT DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know where this putrid stupidity is going.

I looked at this this morning in response to another thread:

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.

Notice they're in the same clause, and that speech comes first. Jeff Gannon was, first, a citizen with free speech. Guess what? Can't be abridged, and if you take their listing at face value, his right to speech takes precedence over a journalist's. Which means that law defining a journalist has even less force and is even more absurd than you think.
To be specific, Snowden might have committed a crime doing what he did (the First Amendment covers only the government, not any specific employer, and employers do have the right to restrict what you can put out there), but anyone taking the information that he took with him, anyone, at all, Greenwald, Poitras, or me, and posting it to any website or publishing it in a newspaper, can't be touched. At least if you take the First Amendment seriously, which unfortunately our courts don't seem to these days. That doesn't make the restrictions being put on speech any less wrong, though. They are, have been, and will always be, flat wrong.

[ProSense]

85. "his right to speech takes precedence over a journalist's"

Yes it does matter, and you're making a case for free speech, not journalism or the press.

Who or what is the "press"? Some are invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history.

Amendment I

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.

Part of the problem in this debate is conflating individual freedom of speech with journalism and the press.

Again you can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

86. Why does it matter?

It doesn't. It makes no legal difference at all. Make your point, if you have one.

[ProSense]

93. I stated why, and

"It doesn't. It makes no legal difference at all. Make your point, if you have one."

...you're simply dismissing the point.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

95. Well, you'll have to restate it,

because the plain text in the First Amendment contradicts whatever stupid crap you came up with.

[sabrina 1]

84. He is protected by the 1st Amendment, from government interference

wrt writing his opinions as he should and every other American.

The people can determine whether what he has to say is worth anything.

I hope that answers the question that is intended to extract a 'no' later to be used to try to defend the Government defining who is or who is not a journalist.

Rush Limbaugh, Gannon, Hannity, O'Reilly, all are protected by the 1st Amendment as they should be. Anyone who disagrees with that is walking down a very rocky road regarding their own views of who a journalist is.

[ProSense]

91. Again

He is protected by the 1st Amendment, from government interference

wrt writing his opinions as he should and every other American.

The people can determine whether what he has to say is worth anything.

Rush Limbaugh, Gannon, Hannity, O'Reilly, all are protected by the 1st Amendment as they should be. Anyone who disagrees with that is walking down a very rocky road regarding their own views of who a journalist is.

...you are addressing "freedom of speech," not what constitutes "the press."

Freedom of the speech is inherent to a free press. Still, an individual's right to free speech doesn't mean the person is automatically the press or a journalist.

Who or what is the "press"? Some are invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history.

Amendment I

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.

Part of the problem in this debate is conflating individual freedom of speech with journalism and the press.

Again you can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

92. Once again, why does it matter? Answer that question. n/t

[ProSense]

94. You got your answer above and in this comment. Now address the point. n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

96. There is no point at all,

if you actually can read.

[sabrina 1]

97. The Constitution is clear on this. You are so wrong on this issue it boggles

the mind.

The other side would like to 'define journalism' also. Fortunately the FFs understood that and were very clear about the protection of those who write their opinions.

YOU are now trying to 'define journalism' with this very question. That is so, very dangerous I don't know where to begin.

And the 'other side' will do the same thing, with people like Rachel Maddow. Two sided of the same coin.

That is why I will defend even a creep like Hannity because we need a general standard that CANNOT BE partisan or we lose this Democracy.

DiFi's bill is an outrage against the Freedom of the Press.

Disagree with someone if you wish, but never, EVER allow the Government to shut them up.

Unbelievable what I am seeing on this forum over the past few years. Jefferson was so right about the dangers of partisanship.

[ProSense]

99. No, and your opinion is

The Constitution is clear on this. You are so wrong on this issue it boggles the mind.

The other side would like to 'define journalism' also. Fortunately the FFs understood that and were very clear about the protection of those who write their opinions.

YOU are now trying to 'define journalism' with this very question. That is so, very dangerous I don't know where to begin.

...is deflection. I mean, this has nothing to do with "the other side."

The question has been met with statements defining journalists as "analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest" or "writing" that is "meant to inform" or here:

No. Propaganda and advocacy journalism are not the same thing.

There's a difference between openly acknowledging bias in journalism and reporting factually-inaccurate writings.

No, a guy who deliberately publishes inaccurate information is not a journalist. Someone who reports with a slant but is factually accurate is. [/div
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post78

The fact is that just because someone says something and puts it in writing, and that person can because of freedom of speech protections, that doesn't make the person a journalist of the press.

[sabrina 1]

134. The 'press'. Where do you think the word came from? Was Ben Franklin

a 'journalist'? Was Jefferson? THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENTS that are the basis and foundation of this country. They wrote pamphlets, nailed declarations to trees and doors, Ben Franklin was his day's version of a BLOGGER, using a pseudonym.

They didn't use any words to define themselves, they wrote, the reported news, they wrote documents that established the law of the new nation they helped to found.

And then they wrote an Amendment making their writing LEGAL and PROTECTED, because until then, a certain King had not considered them 'protected' for their writings.

The founders who wrote the Law of the Land which the SC bases all of its decisions on, were not concerned with 'labels' for those who write. They wanted ALL OF THEM protected.

What you are proposing, to pick and choose who is protected regarding what they write, if it ever were to come to pass, would end this democracy.

Is Rachel Maddow a journalist protected by the 1st Amendment??

Should she be subject to punishment for her 'journalism'? Because if you think that Hannity et al, then you can be sure anyone outside the Corporate Media WILL BE. So dangerous, I don't know what to say anymore.

[ProSense]

135. What?

"Where do you think the word came from? Was Ben Franklin a 'journalist'? Was Jefferson? THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENTS that are the basis and foundation of this country. They wrote pamphlets, nailed declarations to trees and doors, Ben Franklin was his day's version of a BLOGGER, using a pseudonym. "

Are you comparing Jeff Gannon to Ben Franklin and Jefferson?

Were they disseminating propaganda and intending to mislead?

Is James O'Keefe today's "version" of Ben Franklin?

[sabrina 1]

147. ??? Let me ask YOU that question:

Am I comparing Jeff Gannon to Ben Franklin??

That is an easy question to answer, which begs the question, 'why did you even ask the question in the first place'?

[Chan790]

120. "you can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press."

Disagree. That's exactly what it means. I'd add the caveat for "for public dissemination" but other than that...yeah, that's what it means.

If you go to work tomorrow, discover your employer is doing something illicit and come to DU even and write about it...you're a journalist. If you write about it on your blog...journalist. If you report a slant piece based on facts on Fox News...still a journalist. Do it for money...journalist. Do it for no pay...journalist. Write about it and are published in the WaPo...no more or less of a journalist.

A writer writes. It's the first thing I teach when I teach a writing class.
Perhaps the second needs to be--A journalist writes to inform other people. (And that's the only criteria.)

[ProSense]

133. How about

"If you go to work tomorrow, discover your employer is doing something illicit and come to DU even and write about it...you're a journalist. If you write about it on your blog...journalist. If you report a slant piece based on facts on Fox News...still a journalist. Do it for money...journalist. Do it for no pay...journalist. Write about it and are published in the WaPo...no more or less of a journalist. "

....Michele Catalano (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023389805), journalist?

Again, the shield law doesn't define who is a journalist. Also, there are no protections for journalists in the Constitution. There is no definition of a journalist in the Constitution. The funny thing about this debate is that some believe that no protection is best. The fact is that no protection is exactly what applies to every citizen.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a “reporters privilege,” interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

The First Amendment protects free speech for all, meaning you can say and print anything.

The shield law adds privilege and protection for the practice of journalism. It's similar to licensing for other professions. You can't simply claim to be a doctor or a lawyer and go out and practice medicine or law, respectively.

The law has nothing to do with limiting free speech, impeding the press or preventing anyone from claiming to be a journalist. What it does is determine who qualifies as a "protected" journalist, and it doesn't automatically exclude anyone.

From EFF:

<...>

First, the bill defines “covered journalist” instead of “journalist.” Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a “journalist” or “journalism” for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.

Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting “covered journalists,” the bill also contains a “Judicial Discretion” provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield law’s protection to any person if:

on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.

The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the law’s strict definition of “covered journalist.” Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as first–time freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an “entity,” are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfect—the “legitimate news-gathering” language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow—but it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.

Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a “salaried” employee.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

[SomethingFishy]

88. ....

Sorry.

Just doing my part as a "Left Wingnut".

[SomethingFishy]

98. Is John Stewart? Stephen Colbert? Glen Greenwald? Matt Taibbi? Greg Palast?

What are your standards? Do you believe this bill is being put out there for the good of the American people? How happy will you be when it comes time for the Republicans to decide who gets press passes and who doesn't?

Do you not see the problem here? Seriously?

And BTW Jerry "Jeff" Gannon was made to look like the fool he was. He was excoriated and we never heard another word from him again. Are you saying this isn't enough?

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. when CNN was propagandizing to push the invasion of Iraq or the impeachment of Clinton, were they

journalist?

The idea of establishing a criteria that says only those part of respectable establishment are journalist or only those who are in approximate with one's own politics are journalist - is pure, simple authoritarianism

[Warpy]

101. He was a useful idiot, paid to try to dictate the news

rather than ask genuine questions to find out what was really going on.

He was, at best, a paid propagandist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. I find the tendency toward authoritarianism by the majority of poll respondents here very disturbing

If we are going to accept that the government cannot define or declare that a free speech activist who leaks government secrets is a non-journalist and then unworthy of full first amendment protections then we cannot do a switch and declare someone whose politics are the total opposite are not journalist either. This is simply using state power as a bludgeon against one's opponents.

Whether Jeff Gannon or Wolf Blitzer who certainly did far more to propagandize for the Bush White House than Jeff Gannon ever dreamed of - is a journalist might be a matter of opinion like asking if Britney Spears is an artist. But I no more want the state to be empowered with the ability to determine who is a journalist than I want them to be empowered with the ability to determine who is an artist.

[ProSense]

106. Actually,

I find the tendency toward authoritarianism by the majority of poll respondents here very disturbing

If we are going to accept that the government cannot define or declare that a free speech activist who leaks government secrets is a non-journalist and then unworthy of full first amendment protections then we cannot do a switch and declare someone whose politics are the total opposite are not journalist either. This is simply using state power as a bludgeon against one's opponents.

Whether Jeff Gannon or Wolf Blitzer who certainly did far more to propagandize for the Bush White House than Jeff Gannon ever dreamed of - is a journalist might be a matter of opinion like asking if Britney Spears is an artist. But I no more want the state to be empowered with the ability to determine who is a journalist than I want them to be empowered with the ability to determine who is an artist.

...that characterization is inaccurate. The shield law doesn't define who is a journalist. Also, there are no protections for journalists in the Constitution. There is no definition of a journalist in the Constitution.

The First Amendment protects free speech for all, meaning you can say and print anything.

The shield law adds privilege and protection for the practice of journalism. It's similar to licensing for other professions. You can't simply claim to be a doctor or a lawyer and go out and practice medicine or law, respectively.

The law has nothing to do with limiting free speech, impeding the press or preventing anyone from claiming to be a journalist. What it does is determine who qualifies as a "protected" journalist, and it doesn't automatically exclude anyone.

From EFF:

<...>

First, the bill defines “covered journalist” instead of “journalist.” Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a “journalist” or “journalism” for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.

Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting “covered journalists,” the bill also contains a “Judicial Discretion” provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield law’s protection to any person if:

on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.

The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the law’s strict definition of “covered journalist.” Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as first–time freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an “entity,” are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfect—the “legitimate news-gathering” language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow—but it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.

Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a “salaried” employee.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140

Someone offered the following names to support independent, non-salaried journalists, and I added links to their credentials.

Amanda Marcotte
http://www.slate.com/authors.amanda_marcotte.html

Allison Kilkenny
http://www.thenation.com/authors/allison-kilkenny#

Rania Khalek
http://www.thenation.com/authors/rania-khalek#axzz2fXZUeSwM

Molly Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/molly-knefel
http://www.salon.com/writer/molly_knefel/

John Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/john-knefel

And I asked, what about Kos, is he a journalist?

How about Spandan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153

Who or what is the "press"? Some are invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history.

Amendment I

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.

Part of the problem in this debate is conflating individual freedom of speech with journalism and the press.

You can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.

There have been statements defining journalists as "analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest" or "writing" that is "meant to inform" or here:

No. Propaganda and advocacy journalism are not the same thing.

There's a difference between openly acknowledging bias in journalism and reporting factually-inaccurate writings.

No, a guy who deliberately publishes inaccurate information is not a journalist. Someone who reports with a slant but is factually accurate is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post78

The fact is that just because someone says something and puts it in writing, and that person can because of freedom of speech protections, that doesn't make the person a journalist of the press.

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. for all practical purposes it does - it define who is protected under shield laws and who is not

to large degree - cooking up a bunch of crass sophistry to justify empowering the state's ability to inhibit access to information is an assault on liberty to the extreme

[Faryn Balyncd]

108. How did the 1st Amendment ever survive 224 years without defining journalist (or 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."

Now ... is that sloppy writing... OR WHAT ? ! ? ! (It doesn't even make clear who gets the protections)

Without a definition, why . . . . . just ANYONE might think they could operate a "press", and be protected!!!

And, now that we think about it, without a definition of maybe just about anyone might get the idea that just anyone could be a "speaker", or an "assembler", or a "petitioner"!!!

We need some more definitions!!!

Without definitions of who gets to be a legitimate "speaker-person", or a legitimate "press-person", or a legitimate "assembler-person", or a legitimate "petitioner-person", why ...... anarchy (or something) might break out!!!

Why, heavens....... without definitions you might even see some lefty lawyer try to twist around the First Amendment and pretend the founders intended that "no law abridging the freedom of the press" means that the government can't authorize the legitimate press, and suppress the illegitimate!!!! My God, what more blasphemies could they think up??????

But I'm sure feeling safer now that we have some responsible, security minded Senators who can correct the sloppy mistakes of those loosey-goosey founders, who didn't even take the time to realize they hadn't put in the proper qualifying definitions for exactly which Americans are legitimately entitled to freedom of the press, and which Americans are illegitimate pretenders!!!











(Where the hell did that satire smilie go??)

[ProSense]

111. "Currently, 40 states have shield laws..."

Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a “reporters privilege,” interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

[Faryn Balyncd]

132. Thanks for the link.

Glad to see the improvements made, and that Feinstein's definition was rejected.

[TheKentuckian]

112. Yes..a pukey yes but a yes.

Why are we getting bogged down on this, when one would only be shielded in areas directly related to their reporting anyway (whatever form that takes)? What is logically all the hubbub? This could only be to allow a precedent to define who is the press and who isn't rather than protections for journalists. The idea is clearly to make sure some folks are cut off from the herd rather than protecting anybody at all.

The shield law is needed, the definitions are not and cannot be constitutional. It is restriction by control of definition of not what but WHO and there is the hitch.
Want a "meaningful debate" then come back with a criteria based on what is being done rather than who is doing it and we can have that talk but there is nothing meaningful to debate when asserting such power as good ole DiFi has here and the committee by extension.

The fact that the criteria is not about what happens but who is doing means automatic chicanery.

There are many more bloggers that give more insightful and informative reporting than the likes of Wolf Blitzer or Chuck Todd, the argument reduces to absurdity instantly as soon as many or even most of who would most definitely be protected are filtered through the simple lens of do they inform, provide factual context, fact find, or ferret out truth that the powerful wish to keep hidden?

Corporate propaganda, distraction, and partisan pundantry are shielded. Anyone else can tell their story to a judge and see what happens.

I understand the "Holy shit! We have to get some kind of protections in place for journalists!" idea but I don't accept any cure need to be this inherently dangerous in an era of media consolidation and dereliction of duty. Little in the way of real news comes from the protected class here, not to say they shouldn't also be protected but they are of secondary concern at this point until some little folk have done the work in a lot of cases.

[OmahaBlueDog]

113. Jeff Gannon is a State farm agent in Mt. Juliet, TN

http://www.statefarm.com/agent/US/TN/Mt-Juliet/Jeff-Gannon-567WS2W1000

James Dale Guckert is a different subject.

[Aerows]

114. Are you?

If you report something on the web, are you absolutely required to name yourself, your source and how you came about said information?

Because somehow, I think there are a LOT of people that will be very unhappy with that requirement. I mean hell, if Fox News is allowed to lie to people, I don't see why any Joe Blow isn't allowed to say whatever in the hell they want to say and still be labeled a journalist.

Because that is what you are saying - an organization that has the right to lie to people in the mass media has more credentials than people that tell the truth.

[ProSense]

115. No, that's not what I'm "saying"

The fact is that the Constitution doesn't define or protect journalists. It protects freedom of speech.

[Aerows]

116. But that is what you are endorsing

See, when people have the right to LIE to the American public in the mass media, protect the sources of said lies and enjoy protection TO lie and distort, then people telling the truth deserve the same protections, and I don't care if they have an audience of two people.

If you get the blessing to lie with protection, then everyone else gets the blessing to tell the truth with protection even if you don't agree with what they have to say.

[ProSense]

117. No, it isn't. n/t

[Aerows]

118. Yes, it is

Please elaborate how the integrity of Fox News is suddenly far more sound than an independent reporter that cites their reputation and sources that they can cite, yet not be considered a journalist.

You can't have it both ways.

[ProSense]

119. No, and

"Yes, it is

Please elaborate how the integrity of Fox News is suddenly far more sound than an independent reporter that cites their reputation and sources that they can cite, yet not be considered a journalist.

You can't have it both ways."

...you appear to want to have a discussion that has nothing to do with my point. I said nothing about the "integrity of Fox News."

[Aerows]

121. Prosense, you aren't going to win this one

I realize you are in between a rock and a hard place, wanting to support anything a Democrat comes up with, and considering the damage WikiLeaks and Snowden did to the USA's reputation. The fact is, though, that you cannot argue that Fox "News" is allow to create and invent news while saying that an ordinary American cannot release information to the general public.

You cannot have it both ways. I realize it sounds like a good idea in passing, but it is a legal landmine full of lots of people lodging lawsuits and winning big on taxpayer dollars.

But hey, to quote someone you respect quite a bit, proceed Governor.

[ProSense]

124. You don't know what you're talking about

"You cannot have it both ways. I realize it sounds like a good idea in passing, but it is a legal landmine full of lots of people lodging lawsuits and winning big on taxpayer dollars. "

The shield law doesn't define who is a journalist. Also, there are no protections for journalists in the Constitution. There is no definition of a journalist in the Constitution. The funny thing about this debate is that some believe that no protection is best. The fact is that no protection is exactly what applies to every citizen.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a “reporters privilege,” interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

The First Amendment protects free speech for all, meaning you can say and print anything.

The shield law adds privilege and protection for the practice of journalism. It's similar to licensing for other professions. You can't simply claim to be a doctor or a lawyer and go out and practice medicine or law, respectively.

The law has nothing to do with limiting free speech, impeding the press or preventing anyone from claiming to be a journalist. What it does is determine who qualifies as a "protected" journalist, and it doesn't automatically exclude anyone.

From EFF:

<...>

First, the bill defines “covered journalist” instead of “journalist.” Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a “journalist” or “journalism” for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.

Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting “covered journalists,” the bill also contains a “Judicial Discretion” provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield law’s protection to any person if:

on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.

The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the law’s strict definition of “covered journalist.” Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as first–time freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an “entity,” are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfect—the “legitimate news-gathering” language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow—but it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.

Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a “salaried” employee.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

[Aerows]

125. I think I have a far better argument than you do

and like I said, if you want to ride this horse over a cliff, I won't stand in the way of you getting a saddle.

I'll probably point it out occasionally how it failed absolutely miserably, though, because it has about as much chance of passing as Dick Cheney has of winning a marathon.

[ProSense]

126. Well,

"I think I have a far better argument than you do and like I said, if you want to ride this horse over a cliff, I won't stand in the way of you getting a saddle."

...of course you do. I'm sure those arguing to kill the bill believe thay have a "far better argument" that these groups.

Reporters Committee statement on shield bill

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.

Our statement: We are pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee passed this bill. It goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. It's not a perfect bill, but it tries to cover a broad array of reporters. While it is not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been. It still is important that we work with Congress and the administration to make sure journalists' records are not scooped up in broad surveillance programs, and that Justice Department attorneys respect the rights of reporters, but today's action is a significant step in the right direction.

<...>

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill

Senate Finally Frees the Press (Kind Of)

By Gabe Rottman

The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday took up a federal reporter shield law for the second time this year, after getting caught up back in July over the definition of a journalist. This time around, however, the committee passed it, marking the first time a shield bill has moved since 2009, when momentum behind a very similar measure died an unfortunate death after the Wikileaks affair. Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency.

The recent revelations that the Justice Department has aggressively investigated members of the news media in several high-profile leaks inquiries have breathed new life into the measure, which would add federal protections on top of the 49 states that already "shield" reporters from having to disclose their sources and work product.

<...>

The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.

<...>

But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."

- more -

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind

From the President: Contact your senators now!

It’s time to raise the shield. Now! Congress is considering the Free Flow of Information Act — a federal shield law. We need to let our U.S. senators know how important this legislation is for society. You can help! Email or call your two senators (info below), and then let us know that you did. We will update the shield map and continue to spread the word. Act now!

- more -

http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp

Updated to add:

By David Greene

Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But It’s Still Imperfect

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a new version of the proposed media shield law, forging a compromise on who should be protected from having to reveal their journalistic sources in court. The amended bill, which is now clear to go for a full vote in the Senate, avoids defining who is a “journalist.” Moreover, it would allow judges the discretion to apply the protection to any person who, in the interest of justice, should be considered a practicing journalist.

The bill is far from perfect, but the new compromise opens the door to non-mainstream journalists, as well as new forms of journalism that may develop in the future.

The Long and Winding Road to a Federal Reporters’ Privilege Statute

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987) would create protection for newsgatherers who are served with subpoenas or other court orders seeking unpublished information obtained during the course of their newsgathering.

Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a “reporters privilege,” interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.

There is no question that a federal shield law is needed. However, as with all shield laws, the law must define which persons can claim its protections.

- more -

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect

Fact: No protection means no protection for anyone, and we all have free speech protection with or without the shield law.

[Aerows]

127. Good luck on this one

I'm still going to occasionally remind you that you supported such garbage.

[ProSense]

129. Not a problem

"I'm still going to occasionally remind you that you supported such garbage."

I support a law that will protect journalists. You don't. Simple as that.

[Aerows]

131. I don't support a law

that limits whom is defined as a journalist, simple as that.

[Wolf Frankula]

122. Wasn't He W's Man-Date?

Wolf

[dawg]

123. Yes he was.

If we allow *anyone* to start picking and choosing who is and who isn't a journalist, then we are allowing that person (or entity) to place their own limits on freedom of the press.

[Rowdyboy]

130. He's every bit as much a journalist as Britt Hume and Chuck Todd.....

In other words, no.....

[Caretha]

138. Dang!

You left an option out, so I'll just insert it here for those who feel there isn't a button to push on your poll

Is Jeff Gannon really ProSense?

[ProSense]

139. "You left an option out"

Likely because it was stupid?

[Caretha]

140. That's

never stopped you before

[ProSense]

141. At least you agree it was "stupid."

Beyond that, it was your suggestion so save the projection.

[Caretha]

142. Yes I do

but absurdity can only be met with absurdity, hence my response to an absurd (stupid) poll.

[ProSense]

144. Like I said, stop projecting. n/t

[WinkyDink]

148. What's the point here? JG could have been a journo AND a male prostitute for a WH resident.