[Infowarrior] - A media law that stifles the press

[Richard Forno]

A media law that stifles the press
By JASON STVERAK | 9/26/13 6:28 PM EDT

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/a-media-law-that-stifles-the-press-97431.html?hp=r7

There is a sad irony in the proposed media shield bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

Lawmakers introduced the bill after the federal government violated press freedom by probing the phone records of Associated Press reporters without permission last year. According to the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the proposed law “ensures that the tough investigative journalism that holds government accountable will be able to thrive.”

Yet an amendment attached to the bill does the very thing the legislation purports to stop: Rather than providing a “shield” so that the government cannot force those who do journalism to reveal confidential sources, it determines who is and is not legally a journalist, offering protection only for those who fit a too-narrow definition of the term.

Spearheaded by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) — who told the Judiciary Committee she believes the bill should apply only to “real reporters” — the amendment defines a journalist as an “employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information” on one of a number of specified platforms, including newspapers, websites, books, television and radio. What’s more, the law would cover only journalists who have been employed for one continuous year within the last 20 years, or three continuous months within the last five years. Protection would also apply to student journalists or freelancers but only if they have “substantially contributed” a “significant number of articles, stories, programs, or publications” over the past five years. While freelance journalists, who essentially sell their reporting services and stories to established news outlets for publication, would qualify as independent contractors, it’s doubtful many independent bloggers would be granted protection under the new law because they do not write directly for an official news entity and are usually not paid employees. In short, bloggers would get shafted.

Feinstein’s own statements make this clear. Speaking before the Judiciary Committee, she derided the hypothetical “17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for five dollars, and starts a blog.” Yet in the digital age, as Matt Drudge has pointed out, why can’t that teenager report news every bit as significant as, say, Wolf Blitzer? It may be less likely, but that’s no justification for unequal protections under the law. As Drudge understands, our digital era allows anyone to be a journalist, regardless if you are employed by a specific company or have a degree from a specific institution. Journalism is something you do, not something you are.

But there’s even more at stake here. By making a distinction between those allegedly “qualified” to report the facts and everyone else, the proposed law would also restrict opportunities for whistleblowers, either prompting them to go only to journalists who are considered qualified by the government and therefore protected from revealing their sources, or making them less prone to risk exposing a story in the first place. Edward Snowden first sought anti-establishment journalists who were comfortable in the blogging and social media worlds rather than going to the New York Times, which he did not trust to publish the story immediately. It’s easy to imagine how the bill’s restrictive language could further hamper potential whistleblowers, especially considering that it excludes “acts that are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security.” As Zoe Carpenter pointed out in Nation, the vague language of this loophole may not give protection to the journalists who need it most in high-stakes stories.

True, the amendment would allow federal judges to choose to declare someone a “covered journalist” if they do not meet the proposed criteria. This could potentially create some leeway for bloggers, but in reality it means uncertain protection at best. And it’s hard to imagine a whistleblower taking much solace in the possible ruling of a federal judge.

Perhaps most sinister of all, the proposed law reeks of political calculus: Its definition of who is a journalist could restrict any blogger or citizen activist who, to the consternation of many politicians, actually practices good journalism by exposing difficult truths about our elected officials.

These criticisms all concern themselves with one foundational problem: The bill moves to put more regulatory power in the hands of the government. Passing a law with protections that do not apply to the vast majority of Americans – only a qualified minority – runs against the commitment to freedom that defines this country. It implies that most Americans can’t be trusted to speak the truth and challenge authority, and it charges that the government can best handle the issue by passing laws that hinder them from doing so.

Recall the Justice Department’s AP probe earlier this year, when officials tapped 20 phone lines without first getting permission or even notifying the news organization. As AP president Gary Pruitt put it, the DOJ’s move violated the government’s policies and procedures already in place. The problem wasn’t that we lacked rules to stop the government from violating the press’ First Amendment rights. Putting an arbitrary definition of “journalist” on the legal books does not fix the deeper, fundamental problem: government run amok.

Instead, let’s return to the simple rights that have been with America since day one. We already have a law to protect the press without the government meddling in our newsgathering and excluding so many Americans from the reporting process. It’s called the First Amendment.

Jason Stverak is the publisher of Watchdog.org and the President of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/a-media-law-that-stifles-the-press-97431.html#ixzz2g2r4j3Oz

---
Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.