Federal Journalist Shield Law Advances

A journal entry by twitter alerts us that the US Free Flow of Information Act cleared the House Judiciary Committee last week. It is designed as a shield for the confidential sources of journalists, and the bill's sponsors intend that the definition of "journalist" be broad enough to encompass at least some bloggers. The language voted out of the Judiciary Committee stipulates that protections apply only to those who derive "financial gain or livelihood from the journalistic activity" — this could cover anybody with a blog and an AdWords account, and this worries some opponents. The Register's coverage notes "several exceptions regarding terrorism, national security, imminent death and trade secret leaks." If this act becomes law, it would override all state shield laws, some of which may now provide stronger protections. The bill seems unlikely to go anywhere any time soon as its counterpart in the Senate has received no attention, and in its present form it would likely be opposed by the Bush administration.

Protect the Publishers

[Doc Ruby]

The only criterion for who to protect as a "journalist" is whoever publishes. The only reason for the exception to the secrecy rules is because informing the public is more important than letting some arbitrary group of private people (a "conspiracy") talk about the secrets after they've escaped actual secrecy control. Therefore, no one who publishes the old secret is any more privileged than any other. No matter how much money their publishing corporation paid any politician, no matter who went to law school with whom.

This principle of protecting the publisher without any preference among them is essential to the open source movement. The 60-70 year old Baby Boomers running our government have finally started to catch up with current American culture and wisdom. But they need to drop the obsolete old boy protections for "journalists" with whom they have all kinds of "off the record" deals to protect their own secrets from informing the public, including the bribes that corporate mass media pay to keep both their sides of the secrecy rules in business.

'Financial gain'?

[vigmeister]

Wait a second... does this mean that people who contribute to WikiNews [wikinews.org] aren't considered journalists, but mudslinging bloggers who have adwords accounts are?

I call BS on this regulation. Maybe journalists ought to be defined by a certification course on journalistic ethics similar to CITI [citiprogram.org] for researchers?

Cheers!

the other view

[gryf]

As a libertarian I ought to celebrate a law that protects journalists. Unfortunately, at this time, protecting journalists and their sources sounds a lot like protecting Enron. Left or right, we've all been upset about the state of journalism, yet one thing we've not been short of is anonymous source.

Only 15% of americans truly trust the news providers [cbsnews.com], and since just about any story you find in the paper or hear on tv requires us trusting the reporter, and their anonymous sources, it doesn't make sense that we should be making it easier for journalists to pursue a hidden agenda. Me, I want it harder for anonymous sources to come forward. If a source has an issue with this or that policy, they should prove the strength of their conviction by allowing themselves to be named instead of hiding in the shadows. Too often journalists end up as tools for agency or bureaucratic agendas and vendettas.

Republicans and Democrats both villified the press over the Plame outing case because it protected itself and refused to expose the truth behind a high level political case. Democrats wanted the press to name the sources so as to nail Libby and by extension Cheney, Republicans wanted the same thing in order exonerate Libby and by extension Cheney. Instead, journalists ended up in jail over an unfounded assumption that they had to protect a political appointee engaging in an inter-departamental rivalry. Many have pointed out that that episode went far to undermine the freedom of the press.

If we want better reporting and more trust in the news, we should demand as much transparency in reporting as possible, not obfuscate the problems. "Don't mind the source behind the curtain!" is the cry of the journalists. "Put your sources where I can see them" is mine.

Demanding transparency and honesty from the government is futile if we don't demand the same thing from the watchdogs.

Re:I don't get the rationale

[starX]

Let me explain it then, the nebulous entity known as "the press" is traditionally regarded as necessary to the function of a free society. Without someone to report on the actions of elected officials, said officials would be free to act with utter impunity. An active press keeps the public informed about the actions of their elected officials, and thus (so the theory goes) those officials can be held accountable by the people whom they are elected to represent. However the press needs special protections in order to do this job.

For example, civil servants who are compelled by their consciences to reveal the criminal activities of an elected official could also be understandably hesitant to reveal these action publicly for fear of losing future opportunities for employment. A journalist's assurance of anonymity does nothing if a subpoena can compel said journalist to reveal their source, and thus our hypothetical civil servant may not come forward. The elected official's crimes continue undiscovered, and democracy is not served.

The press is commonly referred to as a "fourth estate" in that it serves a vital function for democracy but is not a part of the government. Because of the special function of reporters, they need special protection under the law to allow them to continue to do their jobs successfully. We need them to be able to continue to do their jobs in order to have an informed electorate. Journalist shield laws serve democracy.

So the real question comes down to the definition of a journalist, and this is an important distinction to make. In this case it's not who you are that matters, but what you do. As a self described casual blogger, your blogging activities serve a personal function (keeping in touch with friends, family, and the like). The information you provide to the public is of private interest, as opposed to the professional journalist (even if they are a blogger) who provides information of public interest. As with all laws, basic guidelines need to be established for the courts to rule as to whether or not someone is providing information of private interest or of public interest. If you feel you have been pigeonholed into the wrong category, this would be something for you to argue in court.

Really though the law would be doing you a favor by establishing these criteria. Say you are contacted by a civil servant, you're brother in law maybe, in the above scenario. Because of this law, you would have very clear guidelines as to whether or not you could make a genuine offer of anonymity. If you can't, you need to introduce your source to a recognized professional journalist.