General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI AM A JOURNALIST. SO ARE YOU.
If you decide to be.
The average Americans who joined the Occupy protests, witnessed police brutality, filmed it with their phones, and uploaded those images to the internet for all to see ARE JOURNALISTS.
Someone with a no-name nothing blog who chooses to follow and cover the news, offer information and analysis to inform others, IS A JOURNALIST.
The title is bestowed on anyone seeking to give people information they didn't have before. Thanks to the modern printing press known as the internet, we can all do that. If we do, WE ARE JOURNALISTS.
Arguments to the contrary not only piss on both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, but mightily empower the bullshit factory that is modern "mainstream" news.
The most important reporting happening today is being done by tinkers, tailors, teachers, baristas, bricklayers, truck drivers, cabbies, and all the other people from every walk of life who didn't go to J-school and don't work for a media company owned by five rich guys you'll never meet. That reporting has changed the world, and will continue to do so, so long as they are free to do it.
The government CAN NOT be allowed to decide who is and is not a journalist. Arguments in favor of such a view are just another chapter in the ongoing blizzard of nonsense from the-government-is-always-right power-worshippers who have to defend everything this government does, no matter how preposterous.
I am a journalist. So are you, if you choose to be, and if you dedicate yourself to it.
Period, end of file.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)The dishonest corporate strategy of passing "protections" to dismantle the Constitution
Last edited Sat Sep 21, 2013, 12:38 AM USA/ET - Edit history (16)
This is the new despicable game the corporatists are playing, and it is a dangerous assault. They are advancing what they call legislation to "protect" our Constitutional rights, in order to dismantle those rights.
The game? Take a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Pretend it doesn't exist. Pass a law to guarantee some portion of that right or to outlaw some specific violation of that right. And voila. You have established by default that any violations NOT covered by your law are legal by default ... or that any protections not guaranteed by your law do not exist.
They're working on it now in at least two areas of assault on the Constitution: laws that appear to protect us but which actually assault the Bill of Rights:
1. They will do it with the NSA, to convince the public that they are addressing concerns about spying. Already, any public statements we hear about the NSA involve possibly "scaling back" the programs to please a complaining public, rather than acknowledging that they are unconstitutional.
Keep in mind that the mass spying and storage of data are already unconstitutional by default. We should not need laws to *limit* the programs, because they already violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of warrants and probable cause. The mass spying should be eliminated on Constitutional grounds alone.
But the corporatists will create legislation to "protect" us that makes a grand show of limiting the spying in some small ways. They will be praised by the corporate media for "reining in" the NSA in these limited, most likely cosmetic, ways. But by passing laws outlawing just certain types of spying or access to the data, they establish a given that anything not covered by the law - the larger spying programs - are legal by default./////
because you explained it so well
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)These people are destroying the very foundations of his country. These aren't mere political differences. This is a corporate takeover of America.
Robb
(39,665 posts)The word you're looking for is "citizen." Every right you need, right there. Conferring any sort of protection to a title anyone can choose to give themselves is silly, and makes the title meaningless and the right universal.
Citizen. American. Human.
Yeah, I'm going with human.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)As I just said.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Plumbers have the same rights as bus drivers and typesetters. The right is universal, and focusing on everyone being a journalist is bass-ackwards.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)is the operative Constitutional phrase. It is now being suggested in some circles that this implies a limitation on who "the press" might be -- in other words, who is "a journalist."
The Constitution assigns the right to whomever "the press" might be, so it seems fairly straightforward to make an argument that we are all "the press," and therefore all journalists, to the extent we choose to be.
Robb
(39,665 posts)We are not all journalists, because we don't need to be. We are all guaranteed the right to our speech.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I think that misses both the meaning and the spirit of that part of the First Amendment. They weren't filling space by affirming a specific right to press freedom.
Robb
(39,665 posts)But all forms of speech -- including the written word -- are protected.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)"Freedom of Speech" is the big circle in the Venn diagram. But we have acres of case law since arguing what kinds of "speech" are protected, and to what degree.
The fact that press freedom is specifically set out and acknowledged as a specific form of expression protected from government interference is therefore highly significant. If someone could argue "free speech" does *not* include a free press, they would.
A free press is a particular and discrete freedom of the sort of democratic system we set out to create.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...by subsequent case law?
If you view the press as being distinct from speech, you invite it to be excluded.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)You're circling around the idea the language expressly providing a "free press" is filler, which we both know is nonsense.
Do you want to go back and make that argument? It's what ... redundant? Random? Purposeless?
Recognizing that a free press is a discrete right does not "invite it to be excluded" -- that logic actually is "bass-ackwards," as you put it.
A discrete guarantee of freedom of the press ensures that everyone is clear press freedom is part of the core protection of the First Amendment.
And sorry, but case law is how Constitutional freedoms are applied, so those interpretations are indicative of what Constitutional rights actually mean. We have had to sketch in what "free speech" means in many different contexts, and reduced, increased, or limited protection for various forms of expression. We have considered whether and to what extent burning crosses, stripteases, or a student's T-shirt might be speech, or might be subject to limitations, or might be unprotected altogether.
Do you think all of those cases turned out the same way because the First Amendment simply applies to everything anyone thinks it does?
If not, do you think the freedom of the press is safer being lumped in with the general concept of free speech, or named discretely in the First Amendment?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)broadcast to the rest of the world are not journalists? Anyone who documents the truth is a journalist.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Consider the dismissal of amendments IV-VIII of the Bill of Rights under our national security state. Remember, OWS and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." How'd that work out for them? Freedom of the press in particular and freedom of speech in general are inseparable. What's next, will Congress define what a religion is in order to "protect" it?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...(http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023577288) journalist?
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
For example, 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.
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.
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:
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.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)No one at fox news is a journalist. Rush is not a journalist. Drudge is not a journalist. But, any one of them can be, if they chose to.
A simple solution is negating of shield laws.
The government should not get to define who gets covered by shield laws based on some arbitrary system.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)To decide the definitions in laws? Even if you call that 'arbitrary'?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It is the shield laws at issue here. Certain persons should not receive a "get out of jail free" card over others. I am against this across the board. I do not like politicians getting them, foreign statesmen, or others. Laws should apply equally to all.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Though I can't see what 'extortion racket' means here.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Hosts of opinion based news (on the left or the right) to journalists..
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Go to the 8 minute mark, where Holzer describes the press in Lincoln's day. But no one would have questioned, in the nineteenth century or in that audience, whether or not the reporters for those newspapers were journalists. It would never have occurred to anyone that it was a legit question:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Lincolnandthe
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That makes you a journalist. Jour means day in French.
Even a person who keeps a diary or a journal is a journalist.
The press is any published writing.
The expression "hot off the press" refers to books as well as to magazines and newspapers.
So, yes, even paid shills enjoy freedom of the press. Every one of them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)This thread is feel-good nonsense.
Posting on the Internet is free speech. It does not make you a journalist.
Carry on.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Anyone that speaks out about the injustices of today is a journalist. Who in the fuck are you to say we are not?
Your clear objective is to stifle criticism of the status quo. We are on to your act. And that is what it is, an act.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Nonsense.
This whole "debate" is evidence of a now near universal acceptance of opinion as of equal value as fact.
Journalist report facts; not drive agenda.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But today, news and opinion are mixed in articles.
And the problem is that the paid press does not report the news fully. Very few corporate "news" sources reported on the fact that the Bush administration was lying us into war in Iraq. Very few corporate "news" sources are willing to report on they immense poverty in the face of extreme wealth in our country. Very few corporate "news" sources report on the corruption on Wall Street today. Very few corporate "news" sources have reported fully and truthfully about the important contribution that the ACA will make to our country in terms of economic and social justice. Very few corporate "news" sources reported honestly and truthfully and fully about the Occupy movement. Very few corporate "news" sources report accurately about Republican attempts to close down the country. Very few corporate "news" sources reported what was really going on in Florida when Bush was appointed in 2000.
For the truth on these stories, Americans had to turn to news sources that are not corporate, many of them unpaid individuals who publish on the internet.
I remember in 2008 when John McCain spread lies about what was happening between Georgia and the USSR. It was one of his regular attempts to start another unnecessary war. I personally went to the Austrian newspapers, read their unbiased reports and comments on that story and published the translation and my comments on DU. In that case, I was a source, perhaps not the only one, but a source of truth about a situation that the McCain campaign was misrepresenting.
And I am just one person who is not paid but who can read foreign languages, can obtain information that ordinary Americans cannot get from the so-called "news" meaning the corporate news in America.
If I walk into the courthouse in my hometown next week and find in a trash bin government documents that are marked confidential or secret and that reveal some wrongdoing, some scandalous behavior by a judge or a jury or the President of the US or any senator or the NSA (just an example, not going to happen) and I publish that information on the internet, I deserve the protection of the First Amendment.
As one reporter pointed out, many newspapers rely in part or in whole on freelance reporters. This is especially true of magazines. In addition, the corporations themselves issue press releases and other kinds of information to the press which the press simply edits for style and reprints.
The Congress should not define the press. It is a shortsighted, stupid idea. It's just ridiculous. Anyone who reports a story on the internet or in a local or national news media or just in their own printed newsletter is a member of the press and should be protected by the First Amendment. The White House does not have to issue every one of us a press pass. That is a different matter. But once they start defining "the press," they aren't simply deciding who gets a press pass, they are deciding who is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. We all are entitled to that protection when we publish something. Speech is the spoken word and some written word. The press is publishing news that is not necessarily our opinions. The press today includes both opinion and fact.
Congress is trying to cheat the First Amendment. It isn't a cat and mouse game that Congress should be worrying about winning. It is our freedom. It is our Bill of Rights that is at stake.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)She marches in lockstep. Every time, without exception. Whatever the government wants, that's what the government gets from her.
And look at the list of who she thinks should not be covered. She validates the complaints of political witch-hunting because her every suggestion of who shouldn't be covered is viewed through the ideological lens. Ya know, there's another journalist in the news a lot lately. In fact, his name is has come to be argued about more than the merits of the story he broke. Yet, curiously, we find him not mentioned by her. You'd think his prominence would make him a natural candidate for discussion.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #76)
Post removed
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I won't deny I've made the occasional personal attack on liars who deliberate misrepresent what I say. I own it. I won't even say I regret it because I don't. I am unabashedly unapologetic.
Besides, I seriously doubt personal insults are the sin your faux outrage paints them to be because you just got done calling me an asshole.
But the fact remains, there is no unjust war of choice or insult to civil liberties that you won't champion so long as you get to wave your little flag. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Another very important distinction: if PS calls you post nonsense or silly, that is quite a compliment. Ps's modis operandis is to add noise to discussions that are unflattering to Obama, so if you get ripped by PS, you must be pointing out unflattering truth, and that, almost by definition, is journalism.
So, congratulations.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They report on news items in their area.
On the other hand, one of the reasons (there were a number of them) that I stopped my subscription to my local newspaper was that they did not adequately and critically report the news. My local paper which had a reputation as a leading big city newspaper was copying a lot of stories from the AP and other news bureaus. When it came to reporting in the run-up to the war in Iraq it failed to report on the fraud and falsehoods that were being presented as evidence of WMDs in and Al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq.
Even when the Downing Street Memos came out, the newspaper failed to adequately report on the lies that had been used to get the US into the war. It was shameful.
I had to turn to internet bloggers to get the real news, the true stories about what was going on.
The Feinstein, Shumer effort to silence and intimidate news reporters is about the lowest thing I have heard of yet in Washington, D.C.
Even William Randolph Hearst must be turning over in his grave. It is shocking to think that Congress would attempt to silence the reporting of news in this way. It is indefensible by anyone. Only a paid shill would approve of it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Imagine, "they" will decide what constitutes journalism. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)law would protect reporters, not journalists.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That makes you an opinion writer.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Journalists can be forced to lie, and, obviously all of Fox will be protected by the law. http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
This whole thing is about transferring free speech rights to corporations instead of citizens.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Like they had in South Africa during Apartheid, and still have in Israel today
You only have freedom of speech if you are a government approved journalist
If you don't, then anything you say can and will be used against you
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)They want to be able to decide who is privileged enough to be called a journalist. Sooner or later, journalists will be reporters from companies they approve of and who write things they approve of. It's not a big leap at all. Some people in our government are really full of themselves. People like Feinstein need to be taken down a notch or two. They think we're working for them.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I mean that quite literally..
I understand the source of a lot of the wealth she enjoys is blood money vis a vis Defense Contracts etc... But I understand she was born into "Old Money"... and that's an entirely different category of the elite.
The Old Money Elite, actually believe (quite literally) that everyone else actually exist on this planet to SERVE them. It's an astonishing mind set when confronted with it in person, face to face.
When people like her actually hold public office we should not be the least bit surprised to see it manifested in just this type of bill.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Exhibit A is the number of posters here on DU telling us how wonderful everything is. Nothing to see here. I won't name names.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We know, automatically, if Prosense is for it, it is wrong. We can see through such obvious subterfuge.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
kentuck
(111,089 posts)I might add.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)People have to train to be professionals in a field. Just because someone knows how to spell and type does not make one a journalist, as because I cut up a whole chicken one time does not not make me a professional butcher.
Silliness.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)If you're bad at documenting facts, you'll be rejected from the profession in the natural progression of things. But you're a journalist so long as you try to do it.
Comparing the schooling needed to perform surgery with the ability to say "This happened" in print or video is fail.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If you're bad at documenting facts, you'll be rejected from the profession in the natural progression of things."
Another statement that implies that James O'Keefe is not a journalist.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023708417#post5
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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which deliberately DOES NOT 'define' journalism. Once the Government decides who is or is not entitled to protection, what do you think will happen?
If a Republican Administration decides that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz do not deserve the protection they now have under the 1st Amendment, will you support them at that point?
Because that IS where this will lead.
As it is, they all, including the morons on the Right who choose to express their opinions, right or wrong, have protection and that is how it should be.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Once you've determined who and who is not a journalist, what do you intend to do with them?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)rejected because you are poor at doing it. Sadly to say, Fox news has the largest viewership, yet by every poll conducted, Fox viewers are the least informed and often the most misinformed due to the bad documenting of facts.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)"Real journalists" are paid by Monsanto, BP, Exxon, Nestle, etc. . These organizations ensure that they get their story right!
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)local families, many are non-profit and most have the interest of the public at heart. The reason many newspapers fail at getting a story correct, when they do get it incorrect, is the lack of cash. It takes resources to track down information, vet it and then verify the vetting.
Given the choice between the NYT and Daily Kos blog, or any other blog, I will take the word of the NYT every time.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Judith Miller was a "journalist" .
She was aligned with the Bush Administration. Very aligned.
She "reported" , and made mainstream, the WMD lies that led this nation into the war with Iraq.
It wasn't true. None of it was true.
You wont be able to read about Judith Miller's fall from grace in the NYT.
You can read about it here though. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
It makes a pretty good story, in and of itself.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)any blog on the internet. No blog, and a majority of papers combined, do not have the resources that the NYT has.
Here's the thing, you got one story you can point at and say 'look, they got it wrong." So what? Do you think Einstein never got a simple math problem wrong? Do you believe that Stephen King never violates a grammar rule?
Even the brightest minds sometimes get it wrong.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Little wee story..... "Oh. She "accidentally" got it wrong."
It wasn't an accident. Judith Miller was the Bush administration's lackey. She was in tight. It wasn't a mistake.
It was a conspiracy between the bush administration and their mouthpiece, Judith Miller.
Everybody makes mistakes...But this wasn't a mistake. Judith Miller wasn't a mistake.
It cost hundreds of thousand lives, and emptied the American treasury.
.
NYT: , "Ooops ,My bad!"
Fuck the NYT.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)majority of your blogs would just disappear. These blogs that you seem toi think are so great are doing nothing more than regurgitating other people's hard work, and just trying to pass it off as their own by trying to add some new commentary to it. It's basically the same thing that Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly do.
Good luck in your travels around the internet, you're going to need it.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)I get most of my news through the Guardian and Democracy Now. I browse a blog or two.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)nothing more than a list of article in the NYT and WaPo articles from the past two days?
Thanks for proving my point.
Didn't mean to give you a hard time.
Your faith is quaint, and charming.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Einstein's math. I can, in no way comment.........Although, by the time he published his works, you can bet that math was correct.
Judith Millers "errors" weren't a mistake.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The only motive to strictly define journalism is to stifle free speech. The thieves and the liars are desperate to stifle free speech. The war profiteers! The Wall Street fraudsters! Why doesn't the media mention the systemic criminality and fraud that caused the great economic collapse?
This is now clear to most of the American citizens. Our trust of media is at an all time low. And now we can't escape the liars on the internet. They are all over DU defending right wing ideology in a sneaking kind of way like someone I won't mention.
Jesus Christ how can you believe your own words? You can't be that fucking stupid!
I'm a patriot defending the very foundation of America. What the fuck are you?
You are defending censorship. You suck. At the very least, you suck.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)well you sure have done a bang up job so far.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)you might have a point.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)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.
Please proceed, governor.
Igel
(35,300 posts)I diagnosed and administered medications to my kid last week. Sadly, the government restricts my right to care for my own offspring by restricting what I can buy.
Similarly, there are laws curtailing freedom of information and speech. Granting special dispensation to some people to shelter those who ignore those laws is probably a bad idea given the overwhelming motive for profit and prestige, combined with sometimes megalomania and narcissism.
Better: Make the laws consistent and rational, instead of over broad, and allow other ways to accomplish much of what "journalists" claim to do as the 4th Estate instead of making them the fourth branch of government.
Otherwise, being a journalist is a job. Like being a landscaper, but without the need to be bonded. I mow my own grass--that's still not my profession.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Apparently it's one of the industries that's flourishing there. From very western type mags and newspapers some even run by women, to each tribal warlord, like Doston, owning their own TV station to get their propaganda out. Seems to be the same dynamic you are suggesting.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Everyone has a constitutional right to free speech. I don't always agree with what I read, but I will always defend a person's right to express their thoughts.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Rights affirmed in those documents apply to all persons. One need not be a "journalist" to enjoy the benefits of the First Amendment.
madamesilverspurs
(15,801 posts)30
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)independent news is about all I possibly believe these days.
Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)I do not practice the profession. I can report things I have seen.. but I am in no way a journalist. Period..end of file
Edit to add.. everyone has the right to free speech.. a whole different ball of wax..
kpete
(71,986 posts)WilliamPitt
I think I love you
don't tell mr. pete
peace, kpete
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I assume your post is about the proposed shield law. At present, without the bill, the federal government may issue and enforce subpoenas that force journalists to reveal their sources. The bill would disempower the government from doing so in some circumstances. It would thus make it easier, not harder, for criticism of the government or of big corporations to be published.
The bill would not in any way, shape, or form reduce the rights that any person currently has.
This meme of "government defining who is a journalist" is warping people's judgment. The bill defines a "covered person" but doesn't restrict the First Amendment rights of anyone who's outside that definition. If "government defining who is a journalist" gets you all upset, think of it as "government defining who is a covered person for purposes of a newly conferred limited immunity from cooperating with criminal investigations" -- because that's all it is. If you're not a covered person under the bill, then, the day after it passes, you will still have the First Amendment right to say, write, blog, email, or print anything that's currently protected.
Here's an analogy. The New York Times publishes an editorial opposing a proposed new pipeline. Some people living in the area form a 501(c)(3) charitable organization to oppose it. They accept donations (and tell the donors that donations may be deducted for federal income tax purposes), sell t-shirts, etc.
The government will decide if the NGO meets the requirements for favorable treatment under the tax laws as a charitable organization. It's absolutely clear that the Times does not meet those requirements and must pay taxes on its net income. That distinction, however, doesn't mean that the Times is limited in exercising its First Amendment right to oppose the pipeline.
While respecting everyone's right to free speech, there are sound reasons to give some special privileges to charitable organizations -- and to journalists. To prevent abuse, however, each of those terms must be defined in some reasonable way. We don't want a profitable newspaper to evade paying taxes. We don't want a hired killer to start a blog and on that basis claim immunity from subpoena. That's all that's going on here. There's certainly room for tinkering with the definition, but the screaming about censorship is simply wrong.
ETA: The text of the bill (at least one version) is here. This bill that supposedly enables the government to define the meaning of "journalist" does not actually contain the word "journalist". More to the point, I invite the critics to cite the page and line of any provision that would supposedly restrict any free speech rights currently enjoyed -- by salaried journalists or by bloggers or by Occupy or by crackpots like Westboro Baptist Church. Those people are all still protected by the First Amendment.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)from raining on the latest Poutrage Parade by posting facts, and looking at things in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
Keep in mind that DUers are always better informed than the average citizen. Were it not for DU, none of us would know that Obama, in an unprecedented move, declared May 1st as "Loyalty Day", "took over the internet" by adding its use as a means to inform citizens in emergency situations, or the fact that Michelle Catalano's husband being questioned by the FBI is PROOF!!! that the NSA is monitoring everyone's internet activity.
"I invite the critics to cite the page and line of any provision that would supposedly restrict any free speech rights currently enjoyed -- by salaried journalists or by bloggers or by Occupy or by crackpots ..."
I hope you have a lot of patience - because you'll probably be a VERY old man before someone takes you up on that invitation.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)If indeed we're protected by the first amendment, then why the need to define a journalist in the first place? 
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Is the right to speak or write or blog or tweet about something protected by the First Amendment? Yes, for everyone.
Is the right to defy a federal subpoena that asks you to reveal sources for your speech or article or blog post or tweet protected by the First Amendment? No, not for anyone.
The bill would leave the answer to the first question unchanged. It would change the answer to the second question to "No, but even though that right is not protected by the First Amendment, that right is protected by statute, at least in some limited circumstances, but otherwise No." The circumstances include whether the person being subpoenaed meets the definition of "covered person" in the bill. (As I pointed out, the version I linked to doesn't define "journalist" because it doesn't include that term. It defines the limited class of people, the covered persons, who are entitled to the additional protection being conferred by the bill -- a protection currently not available to anyone.)
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)only for those covered by the government's definition?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)"Freedom of the press" in the sense of the right to say or write or print or blog whatever you want is for everyone. That is the current law. That will still be the law if this bill passes.
In #25 upthread I gave a link to the proposed bill. Please point out to me what provision in it imposes the slightest restriction on any freedom of the press currently enjoyed by anyone, journalist or not. I don't see any such provision.
As I read the bill, all it does is to impose some restrictions on use of subpoenas in criminal proceedings. Some people (anyone who's a "covered person" under the government's definition) would gain a new right, namely the right to have some criminal subpoenas quashed.
There is nothing in the bill that says only a "covered person" as defined therein is allowed to publish, or allowed to criticize the government, or allowed to do anything else that's currently allowed to everyone. If you're not within the definition of "covered person" then your rights will not be affected in any way.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)seem to get confused. You can't have a press without freedom of speech, but you can freedom of speech without having the press.
treestar
(82,383 posts)having to cooperate with the law with the rest of us. And then DIFI comes up with a law to protect people like Risen and now DU goes ballistic over that
So what they are really saying is no one should ever have to cooperate with a subpoena. They are that anti-government. People should get away with crimes if they can.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)into this otherwise insane discussion of preceived 'evils' which we are supposed to guard against. The entire idea is protecting journalists from being subpoeaned to reveal their sources - a worthy goal. Nothing in the breadth or scope of the proposed legislation violates the 1st Amendment in any way, shape or form, hair-on-fire hysteria notwithstanding.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)is collecting more box cars as it rolls along.
Obama is bombing Syria Right Now, too.
oiy. Balls appear to be dangling in the wrong place again.
Democat
(11,617 posts)You'll get a better response here by appealing to emotion and buzzwords.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, WilliamPitt. 
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
tandot
(6,671 posts)no shit ... we have to play a bigger part
KoKo
(84,711 posts)forcing their 1% on the Rest of Us here in the USA!
It just keeps going on and on.
WHERE IS THE BIG DONOR who can OUTSPEND the KOCH BROTHERS AND ALEC?
Without those BIG DONORS...we have little hope for years to come for a REVERSAL of what our Supreme Court has UNLEASHED.
calimary
(81,238 posts)He may not care to set the record straight. But the rest of us do. I don't see how any of us would be any worse than the lazy stenographer job he evidently is committed to doing.
SalmonChantedEvening
(31,951 posts)
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)As someone who has tried to make a living in journalism for a few decades, there is a part of the "citizen journalist" thing that is troubling.
The trend toward de-professionalizing my profession makes me feel under-valued and disrespected. Journalism is not a hobby. It is not that anyone who writes a blog can be as good at it as a seasoned pro. It is hard and requires skills that are not acquired of overnight.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Your profession has undergone a massive regression thanks to the ownership issue, and thanks to the fact that too many of your "professionals" have utterly abandoned the concept of "comforting the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable," which is the whole point of the exercise. The need for the truth has remained ever-present. Citizen journalists have taken up the slack.
Got a problem? Talk to the guys who write the checks, and to the guys who cash the checks while reprinting press releases. If "mainstream" journalists were pulling their freight, this conversation would be moot.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)But the reality is far more nuanced than that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)We are in the tradition of the Committees of Correspondence.
NealK
(1,867 posts)
Mosaic
(1,451 posts)Then when blogging took off I did that. Now I do everything, DU is a great stop on my journey but I've done much more than any of you know.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023709336
Crewleader
(17,005 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Time for Diane Feinstein to resign or be primaryed.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I am so K&Ring this.
The very suggestion that we should categorize Journalists is against the very spirit of the founding of the nation.
You know what it is? They want to shut us up. That is all it is.
They want us to forget what America is, as an idea. These are the greatest traitors in the nation's history. They are enemies of my nation! They are more dangerous than any communist enemy or WWII Fascist enemy.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)once this bill is passed
Thanks Will for the OP and yes they want to control and shut us up.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)under what circumstances should it apply?
If you want everyone to be called a "journalist" for the purposes of a shield law, then you might be saying nobody ever has to testify in court, because they can claim some journalistic privilege -- and if you're not saying that, maybe you should suggest under exactly what circumstances you think people should be allowed to claim some journalistic immunity
Here's the rub: if you make too sweeping an exemption, such as "anyone who blogs about something is exempt from testifying about it," nothing prevents "clever" people from blogging about their "investigations" into various crimes and then claiming immunity from testifying about their knowledge of the crimes on the grounds that they are "journalists"
Hey! I'm not an accessory after the fact! I'm a journalist! I was investigating a brutal homicide to inform the public how people dismember bodies and dispose of them! I took these pictures!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I know it when I see it.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But then my snark detector has been upgraded many times in my career. 
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)In about one paragraph, he manages to say he thinks the First Amendment doesn't cover hard-core porn, which he doesn't know how to define, but he's sure the material being litigated isn't that, and he would know it if he saw it
At least he joined the right side in that case -- which wasn't nearly what usually happened -- but he didn't really add anything to the opinion, except to tell everybody he, Potter Stewart, wasn't going to vote to suppress porn until he knew it was hard-core, whatever the fuck that meant
Apparently, he got the line from his clerk, so maybe he just thought the line was wonderful and only wrote the concurrence to throw in the line
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Having been educated by both books I would tend to say yes.
How about Asimov when he wrote his Guide to the Bible?
http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Isaac-Asimov/dp/051734582X
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)on his Vietnam experiences, though I don't think he ever managed to get it published: it gave a very good view of some psychological issues, and he said it was almost entirely composed of incidents he heard about or lived or witnessed -- but the characters were composite, and the events were shuffled in time and place for artistic and narrative reasons, with some fictional glue. If he'd written it during the war, and serialized it as an effort to "tell the folks back home" what folk experienced in Vietnam, I might have called it journalism -- but he wrote it decades later, and it reads now like a backwards glimpse into a hallucination. Journalism has to be contemporary. Historical novels may require a lot of research, and they may incorporate all manner of actual events, but they're not written in the heat of events
WooWooWoo
(454 posts)not an objective one.
There's a reason "journalism" is a major in college. It quantifies you as having studied the craft.
What you are describing is a "reporter" - not a journalist.
There is a difference - just like there's a difference between a chef and a cook.
It's a professional level standard. I refer to myself as a reporter, not a journalist, because even though I've written for newspapers, magazines and websites - I have no degree.
Journalism is a craft, with first-amendment protections unique for a reason. That HAS to be defined in a legal context in order for it to really survive in the 21st century. That's just the way of things.
If everybody is a journalist, then nobody is a journalist. And journalism ceases to exist.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)+++
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Quite an outrageous abuse of the first amendment to force those citizen journalists to reveal confidences.
Someone with a no-name nothing blog who chooses to follow and cover the news, offer information and analysis to inform others, IS A JOURNALIST.
The title is bestowed on anyone seeking to give people information they didn't have before. Thanks to the modern printing press known as the internet, we can all do that. If we do, WE ARE JOURNALIST
By Will's defintion, they were acting as journalists.
Anyone who publishes anything is a journalist!!!
By this token, Karl Rove, the Crossroads superpac, Americans for Prosperity, and The Tea Party Express are all journalistic enterprises!
Gimme a break--talking about politics online isn't journalism any more than talking about politics at the barbershop is journalism.
No need for journalism departments--since anyone with a cell phone and a Facebook account is a journalist. It means nothing to be a journalist, so there can't be any such thing as a professional journalist anymore than there is a professional cell phone owner.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Jame's O'Keefe is a journalist: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post90
James O'Keefe To Pay $100K Settlement To Former ACORN Employee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022475049
Ex-US Attorney Calls James O’Keefe ‘A Nasty Little Cowardly Spud’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023536792
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)was a journalist too.
The Kock Brothers are journalists. I'm sure they'd be tickled to learn that.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)This will make it easier for the govt. to threaten the short list of approved journalists
with no access... the ultimate means of control... to blacklist the journalist's organization from future insider access...
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Makes about as much sense and is possessed of as much truth so there you go.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...and as such least meaningful sense.
Similarly, just because someone records something and places it on the interwebs only make one a journalist in the most broad and vague, and thus least meaningful terms.
On the other hand, my claim that I am a cheese sandwich, and so are you, has at least the benefit, now that I think about it, of making no pretense of truth of any breadth, such that the claim is at least completely false, rather than grasping with a pinky fingernail at the finest thread of truth that exists solely because of the vagaries of language.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)peculiarities:
Websters:
Writer:
writ·er
noun \ˈrī-tər\
: someone whose work is to write books, poems, stories, etc.
: someone who has written something
Definition of JOURNALIST
1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2
: a person who keeps a journal
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...that there is no difference between, say, William Shakespeare's collected works and you scribbling a note down on a Post-It? Anyone with even a passing familiarity of the written word understand that definitions are but the smallest aspect of their usage. Add into that nuance, context, degree, purpose, narrative, fineness or coarseness of focus and you'll find your vaunted definitions become quite fluid.
In your example, you provide two definitions for writer that no one with even an ounce of experience in life would ever confuse. The first is the definition you are claiming, and the second is the specific reality. You may argue that you are both claiming the second and fit the second, but if this is the argument, it renders itself devoid of any exposition. The same could be said of writing your ABC's or jotting down a grocery list, but that's clearly a conjecture which is trivial at best, seeking only to justify the use of a word. So when we say someone is a writer, we do so meaning that the written word for that individual is at least a productive avocation if not a fully realized vocation.
Similarly, the idea of a journalist as someone who keeps a journal, or someone who happened to have their smartphone recording a moment in time belies what we mean by journalist. The journalist we mean is not a dilettante in the field of reporting the relevancies of our present existence. Again it is at least a productive avocation, but I'd even believe that this is too low a bar. Journalism, in its truest sense, isn't just the accurate reporting of newsworthy events, but an active search for the truth in a sea of related and unrelated events, to seek out the needle of signal in the haystack of noise that is our modern existence. A video of an event which goes viral on YouTube may be an element of the truth, but it does not make the bystander who took it and uploaded it a journalist.
It makes them a cameraman.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Tom Waits
So definitions are important. A writer is a writer. If one wants to further define writer, modifiers are used. Ie, Shakespeare was a FAMOUS writer. It is confusing to change the definition of writer to mean what you believe it to mean (that you define writer as a famous or published or professional writer), as I have no way of knowing what it is you mean until you explain it to me after the fact. Using a modifier allows one to communicate clearly the first time.
But we all need baseline definitions of words. That is why we have dictionaries. Journalist is already defined, we don't need new laws redefining words, in my view.
‘Slowly,’ said Syme. ‘I’m on the adjectives. It’s fascinating.’
He had brightened up immediately at the mention of Newspeak. He pushed his pannikin aside, took up his hunk of bread in one delicate hand and his cheese in the other, and leaned across the table so as to be able to speak without shouting.
‘The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,’ he said. ‘We’re getting the language into its final shape — the shape it’s going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we’ve finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We’re destroying words — scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won’t contain a single word that will become obsolete before the year 2050.’
He bit hungrily into his bread and swallowed a couple of mouthfuls, then continued speaking, with a sort of pedant’s passion. His thin dark face had become animated, his eyes had lost their mocking expression and grown almost dreamy.
‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.‘s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.
A sort of vapid eagerness flitted across Winston’s face at the mention of Big Brother. Nevertheless Syme immediately detected a certain lack of enthusiasm.
‘You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,’ he said almost sadly. ‘Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in “The Times” occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?’
Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:
‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)"Journalist is already defined, we don't need new laws redefining words, in my view."
On the contrary, we often provide specific meanings for words to give them legal standing, for the purposes of making law. Legal concepts require specificity. Too vague and the law is inappropriately applied to too broad a scope. Perhaps we do not need laws which define journalist in a narrow fashion, a point I don't really feel the need to argue outside of the idea that "journalist" as the OP would have us believe breaks only the principles of a useful, common sense definition. To me, that's just silly that we need to "define" a journalist as a separate legal entity. But, that laws are considered for implementation is no fault of the chosen definition. If "journalist" is to have a specific legal definition, then it must have a specific meaning in that arena in order for the law to have a stick by which to measure out the concepts and realities of actions and persons under that law.
As for a writer being a writer, and in the specific case of definition in general, a writer can be a writer, but by another nuance a writer is not a writer. Should we always assume, in the conversant sense, that we should always opt for the most inclusive? The issue isn't that Shakespeare is a famous writer, but that he was prolific in the art form to the degree that others desired to read and act out his works, believing them great enough to warrant that attention. Even the most odious works of people who are contributing to the collective art whether published or unpublished qualify for that more specific definition. I offer that Tom Waits wasn't a writer until he decided to consciously contribute to the art, his bathroom wall scribblings notwithstanding. Please, when we say "writer" in the sense of conversing about someone's work, we know it is this more specific definition to which we ascribe.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)by Websters:
Main Entry: jour·nal·ist
Pronunciation: \-nə-list\
Function: noun
Date: 1693
1 a : a person engaged in journalism ; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience 2 : a person who keeps a journal
http://i.word.com/idictionary/journalist
Not one word about being paid. Yes we are journalists when we practice it.
Since it's already defined, what they are doing is changing the meaning of the word with this new law. Classic authoritarian Orwellian double speak.
Another thing: the courts have ruled that Fox News can order their journalist to lie. So if this passes, PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID TO LIE WILL HAVE BETTER PROTECTIONS THAN PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THE TRUTH.
Yikes!
This whole thing is about transferring free speech rights to corporations instead of citizens.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Black forces at work on this thread. Journalist has been defined since 1693"
....Jame's O'Keefe is a journalist: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post90
"Black forces" would have him arrested!
James O'Keefe To Pay $100K Settlement To Former ACORN Employee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022475049
Ex-US Attorney Calls James O’Keefe ‘A Nasty Little Cowardly Spud’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023536792
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
sweetloukillbot
(11,010 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts) 
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,834 posts)
gulliver
(13,180 posts)...and you can be mostly wrong in almost everything you say. But that doesn't mean you can't call yourself a journalist. You don't have to be any good to do that.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thank You, Will.
I'll stand with you on this.
And those in this thread arguing that DiFi only wants what is good for us?
On Edit:
DiFi is pissed that "Citizen Journalists" uncovered and reported on her
"close connections" with the defense Department, and profits directly from Military Spending.
She would really like to be able to silence those pesky Citizen Journalists who publish these unapproved stories on non-government approved places like the InterNet.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write that Feinstein "would really like to be able to silence those pesky Citizen Journalists who publish these unapproved stories on non-government approved places like the InterNet."
There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would effect that result. The bill defines "covered person" for purposes of affording a shield, entitling a covered person to resist a subpoena calling for disclosure of his or her sources.
Anyone within the definition of "covered person" gains protection against a power the government currently has. The rights of pesky citizen journalist who don't fall within the definition are not affected in any way.
I'm not arguing that DiFi wants only what is good for us. I'm arguing that the actual text of the bill is as I've described it. I don't see anything in it that would at all impair reporting on DiFi's links to the MIC, or on any other topic.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)but I'll still stand with Will and the new Pamphleteers.
Our Government has NO Business defining "Journalists".
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
I'm indebted to ProSense who, in one of the other threads, called attention to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's analysis of the revised bill, posted by EFF on Friday. Key passage:
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. (from "Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But It’s Still Imperfect" by the EFF)
Under current law, there is no definition of "journalist" or "covered person" or any other term for purposes of applying the shield, because there currently is no shield. The bill would protect some confidential sources in some circumstances. Do you favor continuing the current state of the law, under which there is no such protection for anyone? If you don't favor the current law but you oppose the Senate bill, what do you think the law should be?
Vanje
(9,766 posts)I'm glad to read that the govnt is interested in avoiding defining who is a journalist.
The notion that the government would determine who is or isnt a journalist , is chilling. particularly in light of fairly recent incidents of intimidation of journalists by the federal government.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)shields no one.
Good statutory construction should tell you who a law applies to...that's part and parcel of equal protection.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Could that a be judge like say for example in the late Willaim Rehnquist mold or perhaps someone like Roberts, Thomas or Scalia?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Most definitions in law have some subjectivity, and there will be close cases as to which reasonable people can differ. That doesn't mean that we stop trying to make distinctions.
I've used the analogy of the tax privileges accorded to a charitable organization. There's a definition in the Internal Revenue Code; it includes refraining from political activity. Suppose that the IRS decides that a particular church, through its promotion of right-wing politicians, has overstepped that boundary. The IRS revokes the church's 501(c)(3) status. The church disagrees and takes the IRS to court. Guess what happens? A judge (a fallible human being, who might be very liberal or very conservative or anywhere in between) decides if the church is still a charitable organization under the law.
If you don't like having such decisions made by judges, who might be in the mold of Rehnquist et al., then you have two choices:
(1) Abolish the tax deductibility of contributions to charitable organizations. This would cripple the fundraising of a whole range of private organizations that do enormous amounts of good work.
(2) Go to the other extreme and eliminate the government's power to decide who's a charitable organization. If the church or the NRA or whoever says it's charitable, then it is. This would tear a gaping hole in the tax law and cost the federal government billions of dollars every year.
It works the same way with reporter's shield laws. Right now the federal government is at one extreme, where no one may defy a subpoena, including a subpoena demanding disclosure of confidential sources. If you want to protect journalists but you don't want the federal government to be drawing lines, then your only alternative is to say that everyone is covered. A suspect or witness in a criminal investigation who starts a blog is thereby entitled to refuse to cooperate with subpoenas. This would greatly impede criminal investigations.
It's worth repeating (because no one seems to want to respond to it) that the proposed bill does not remove or impair any right or privilege currently enjoyed by anyone, whether or not they're within the definition of a "covered person". It says only that, if you qualify under that definition, you get some legal protection that you don't currently have.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Peace to you, Jim Lane.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)You are a Professional journalist if you get paid for being one. You are a Leftist or Rightist journalist if your journalist posts lean that way - or, since those are perceptional views - if someone accuses your posts as such.
You are a "good" or "bad" journalist depending on prevailing views. At one time, the least "spin" you put on a subject and the more facts you reported the better the journalist you were perceived to be. But, again, these were all based on perceptions of your readers.
Therefore, many journalists are forced to choose a target market. If they are successful with this target market by telling them what they want to hear, then they are considered successful.
That is one of the problems with the modern journalist. When journalism was limited to the few, they had an extremely wide market that they had to appeal to, and they could do it with personality or established correct predictions. Today, anyone can advance a conspiracy theory and support it with pure BS - but as long as they are others willing to believe these BS conspiracy theories allowing that person to collect paid advertisement money, that person is considered a Legitimate Paid Journalist. For example, I give you Drudge.
Therefore, I trust NO source independently. I tend to read several sources and treating them all as "suspect". And then I decide for myself, based on reports that I find the most verifiable and my own conclusions.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The link I gave before for the text of the bill seems to have gone dead, so here it is at THOMAS, the government's website for information about Congressional bills: "Bill Text, 113th Congress (2013-2014), S.987.IS"
You'll note that it doesn't define "journalist". The EFF has praised this change -- see "Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But It’s Still Imperfect". The EFF, while noting some concerns with the bill (such as the national security exception, which I'd guess there is zero chance of eliminating), concluded: "This newly approved version appears to have found an acceptable way of bringing within its coverage a wide range of newsgatherers."
Incidentally, the EFF discussion doesn't exactly track the bill text I link to above. I don't know how promptly THOMAS is updated so I don't know if my link is to the very most current version. Either way, however, it's clear that the bill does not now define "journalist" (although of course we can't know what will happen in the rest of the legislative process).
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Author, Scott Gant. Published 2007
Bio: As the internet continues to reshape almost all corners of our world, no institution has been more profoundly altered than the practice of journalism and distribution of information. In this provocative new book, Scott Gant, a distinguished Washington attorney and constitutional law scholar, argues that we as a society need to rethink our notions of what journalism is, who is a journalist and exactly what the founding fathers intended when they referred to "the freedom of the press." Are bloggers journalists, even if they receive no income? Even if they are unedited and sometimes irresponsible? Many traditional news organizations would say no. But Gant contends otherwise and suggests we think of these sometimes unruly online purveyors of information and opinion as heirs to those early pamphleteers who helped shape our fledgling democracy. He gives us a persuasive and engaging argument for affording bloggers and everyone else who disseminates information and opinion in the U.S. the same rights and privileges that traditional journalists enjoy.
The rise of the Internet and blogosphere has blurred the once distinct role of the media in our society. It wasn't long ago that the line between journalists and the rest of us seemed relatively clear: Those who worked for news organizations were journalists and everyone else was not. Those days are gone. On the Internet, the line has totally disappeared. It's harder than ever to answer the question, "Who is a journalist?" Yet it is a question asked routinely in American courtrooms and legislatures because there are many circumstances where those deemed "journalists" are afforded rights and privileges not available to the rest of us. The question will become increasingly important as the transformation of journalism continues, and bloggers and other "citizen journalists" battle for equal standing with professional journalists. Advancing arguments that are sure to stir controversy, Scott Gant leads the debate with a serious yet accessible discussion about whether, where, and how the government can decide who is a journalist. Challenging the mainstream media, Gant puts forth specific arguments about how to change existing laws and makes elegant suggestions for new laws that will properly account for the undeniable reality that We're All Journalists Now. For all of us who care about the ways in which the digital revolution is sweeping through our culture, this is a work of opinion that will be seen as required reading.
http://books.google.com/books?id=y9Mi9YHwhCEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Scott+Gant%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6Iw_UpyvN_W14AOQ9ICgCA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
leveymg This message was self-deleted by its author.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)And engineers and CPAs and architects. And I am the President of the United States. The first female to hold the office. I am so impressed.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)The government CAN NOT be allowed to decide who is and is not a doctor. Arguments in favor of such a view are just another chapter in the ongoing blizzard of nonsense from the-government-is-always-right power-worshippers who have to defend everything this government does, no matter how preposterous.
I am a doctor. So are you, if you choose to be, and if you dedicate yourself to it.
Period, end of file.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Only people who have passed the journalism bar and done their journalist residency are journalists! 
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And this, of course, has everything to do with corporate control and concentration of private ownership in the mass media.
