Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the federal reporter shield law the Seattle P-I Times editorializes in favor of today. And the Thomas Jefferson quote they use to back their position is well worth repeating:
“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.”
But I’m more than a little annoyed that in all the debate over state and federal shield laws, my colleagues in the corporate media have never once raised the issue as to whether these laws should extend to bloggers like me.
Like those hoity-toity salaried reporters, I often get tips and quotes from sources who choose to remain anonymous, and I don’t see why I should have to go to jail to protect their confidence, when, say Chris McGann wouldn’t? (And I will protect my sources, with or without a shield law, because that’s what journalists do.)
These shield laws have been structured so that they really only apply to the corporate media, that is, journalists who have their paychecks signed by Frank Blethen, the Hearst Corporation, or some other master. Yet as a student of history I’m pretty confident asserting that Jefferson would have recognized my style of reporting as much more analogous to the pamphleteers he sought to protect, than the journalistic anomaly represented by our modern dailies.
Goldy ..
There must be a whole new domain (sic) of bloglaw evolving. Is there a knowledgeable attny who might write about that?
There are very similar issues in re the freedom to use a camera. esp in privately owned public places …eg shopping malls,
in what bastardized version of reality is Goldy considered a journalist?
What, no posts about this?
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien.....2ffa14fd9e
There are a bunch of missing seat cushions in Burner land today…..
You’re not a journalist Goldy; merely an angry little blogger that has the time since gainful employment eludes you to post your drivel. It is entertaining though I must say.
Well, I wouldn’t bring Jefferson in on this, because of the history of back-biting pampleterring using psudonyms was pretty slanderous in those days. Not exactly the standard of journalism we want to hold up in this day and age.
Also, I have to wonder if this is a fight we should be fighting. I’m pretty convinced that Rove & Co. were behind the forged letter which CBS news used in the 60 minutes feature on Bush’s service in the Air National Guard. They managed to discredit CBS as a source, get every other news outlet to avoid the story like it had leperosy, and in the process jump over the fact that the allegations in the forged letter were true, and that get Dan Rather fired to boot. In the meantime, CBS still has to “protect its source”, thereby avoiding any significant investigation into the whole affair.
The right wing has already perfected the use anonymous sources to slander Democrats, proclaim falsehoods as “facts”, and otherwise influence elections in a negative manner. The shield laws would remove any method to investigate those tactis.
@2 In the same reality plane where you consider yourself an American. Okay, so he’s a propagandist, but he’s a patriot too. You can’t say the same.
@5 “Not exactly the standard of journalism we want to hold up in this day and age.”
And exactly what standard is that? Hand-holding the right no matter how outrageous their lies and swindles get? Acting as a bullhorn for the lying and corrupt Greedy Old Plutocrats party? Kissing ass for lying politicians in exchange for access, and beating off for rich media owners in exchange for a food voucher? America is full of media whores, but has nary a journalist left.
Today’s MSM “journalists” have given new meaning to the phrase “will work for food” although this should be edited to read “will bend over for food.”
Yes, I think the journalist shield law should extend to bloggers (and anyone else) when they perform a journalistic function. The legal test for applicability should be what you do, not who your employer is.
Even if you discount the “journalist” argument, we, as Americans, still have freedom of speech which includes writing stuff down. There is really no difference between what a “journalist” does and what a “blogger” does except the journalist has a piece of paper (supposedly) that says they graduated in journalism. But what the hell, most of the talking heads of TV aren’t true journalists but I’m sure everyone thinks the shield laws apply to them.
I am a blogger too and I write opinion pieces, I do my own research, I slant my writing in one direction or another. And so I believe my freedom should be protected under the shield laws. Especially now when the illegal search and seizure laws have been crapped on by the Bush administration — we need something to counteract this. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are protected in the same Amendment to the constitution; Amendment #1.
This is my first visit to this site. I see a lot of negative comments so I don’t know what Goldy has done to piss some people off. But I say if you have pissed people off then you’re doing the right thing by getting them to think. Neither Jefferson not any of our founding fathers would disagree with Goldy’s right to speak her mind, and write it down. I believe I have the exact same right.
NBO and Mark1 obviously have some issues and seem the type to troll the blog-o-sphere looking for someone to pick on. Is that protected by the Constitution? I believe they would say yes so what’s good for the goose….
Good luck Goldy
Goldy – on target 100 per cent.
George, SGN
RR @ 9: On that part, we can agree. If there is a shield law for journalists, it should extend to bloggers, also.
I’m just ambivilant about whether there should be a shield law at all. At least a lot of bloggers are judgement proof, which provides at least some measure of protection for them.
Why doesn’t it apply to you, Goldy? Because… in the words of Roger Rabbit:
“Goldy is an activist, not a journalist.”
In that same post, Bunny Boy says:
“Are you really this stupid? If you’re an ‘activist,’ you can’t be a journalist, because journalists must be objective and activists are, by definition, partisan.”
I know there has been at least one judicial decision equating a blogger with a journalist for shield law purposes. It was a tech blogger who had an informant from inside Apple who was giving him info. He was sued by Apple to tell who his informant was and the decision was that the blogger was effectively a journalist and did not have to name his source. Can’t remember the state the decision was rendered in. It was a couple of years ago. I remember my husband (who reads a bunch of tech blogs) telling me about it.
You can’t have this protection, Goldy, because you are a hypocrite.
You want the 1st Amendment to apply to any individual with a keyboard, but argue against the 2nd Amendment applying to any individual who isn’t in the “militia”, which you then proceed to define for your purposes.
I too would like nothing less than full coverage of a sheild law, for the simple fact that Ron Sims’ government is hypocritical and the juicy tidbits I have available aren’t crimes, and therefor do not fall under wistleblower protections (and I wouldn’t want my friend to lose his job over me blogging them).
More freedom, not less.