The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.
Laws recognizing some form of “reporter’s privilege” already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia–but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there’s no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs.
On several occasions, politicians from both parties questioned whether the bill should be so expansive as to include bloggers.
“Whether you’re a blogger or whether you’re The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you’re a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not,”
As the blurb states–No!. Bloggers as journalists when performing as journalist should have some level of Federal immunity.
But if said protection is not granted, whatever the rule is should be plain and simple to follow.
It is repulsive how much reasonable access to information has been legally and illegally restricted by Bush Co. What kind of people are so motivated?
Meanwhile, bloggers aren’t journalists. As with this blog, they’re commentators, and deserve no protection.
Granted, the line between fact and comment has gone away over the past few years, so I doubt this line of thought will work in an America where #1 thinks his opinion is somehow strengthened by taking (yet another meaningless) pot shot at a politician.
This is a viewpoint that cuts both ways. Taking it as conservative or liberal shows your lack of intelligence.
I’m a magazine journalist, but I recognise the validity and right to protection of bloggers who can’t write mails from some ‘useful’ domain (like the one I write from at work) and gain privilege because of it. If I am to survive, I will have to be as good as the amateurs or better. Fair enough. Accord them what protection I enjoy, by all means,.
#2, just what makes a person a journalist? Schooling? Having a press pass?
I’m not surprised at Shrub being against this.
All I know is that the girl on the photo is REALLY pretty. Anyone knows her?
5. The real Tiffany Teen.
#4: Answer: The fact that somebody thinks they are good enough to employ as a journalist.
I’ve been a journalist for nearly 30 years — including two different jobs at United Press International. I’ve been involved in online journalism for the past 12 years. Sometimes I blog straight news and other times I comment about the news.
When I comment in a blog about news, the First Amendment protects me the same way as it does when I write news. It also protects the newspaper editorial writer the same way.
Bloggers are no different if they write news or about the news. I work in Florida where citizens enjoy one of the storngest open records laws in the nation. And that public records law doesn’t treat citizens any differently from journalists.
The shrub strikes again. We are the lowest ebb of civil rights this nation has ever seen. I earned the right to criticize. I voted for him. Unfortunately, the other party offers no real alternatives.
I think it’s time for another tea party in Boston harbor.
#2 – Excellent and insightful commentary as usual… I really like how you countered Bobbo’s opinion with logical and reasoned argu – wait… you countered with just another unsupported opinion again didn’t you? Yes… yes you did! And then you called Bobbo an idiot, and from what I can tell, the reason he is an idiot is that his opinion doesn’t match your opinion…
But James… Your opinion is just another right wing platitude designed to suck Bush’s testicles, followed up by a good swipe of Bush’s Imperial Anus with your wet, wide lapdog tongue.
You are this blogs moral equivalent to the Comic Book Store Owner in The Simpsons.
#6 – I really don’t understand why so many people have this information at their fingertips… But I get a pretty clear idea of what else they have at their fingertips…
Journalists shouldn’t get such blanket protections. Simply being a journalist doesn’t place you above the law. And of course, the first amendment applies to everyone, and doesn’t have any licensing requirements. So if journalists get this protection, then everyone does.
The bigger problem is if they separate bloggers form journalists, then it means campaign finance regulations can be interpreted the same way. Maybe that’s why John Dvorak’s blog was so silent during the immigration debate.
#2—It never occurred to me I was a journalist, or a blogger, by posting here. In any case, I only expect my First Amendment rights.
Now I do consider Mr Dvorak to be a blogger and that he has the exact same Free Speech Rights no different than mine. But as a Blogger, he “should have” the additional protections of a journalist–eg, the right to shield a source for instance.
My opinion is that there should be a limited Federal shield for journalists and bloggers. That opinion is totally seperate from and not supported by the FACT that Bush Co has restricted access to information. My opinion and that objective FACT both address an aspect of an informed society, the bedrock of democracy.
I don’t follow your last paragraph, so restate it if it is worth the effort.
Maybe James Hill or others can explain the difference to me. Let’s say that John gets a hot tip about the iraq war. If he publishes it in PC Magazine he does not have to turn over his source. But if he publishes it on his blog, he does?
Let’s imagine that a blogger who has millions of readers from all of the world breaks a hot story due to a hot tip. The story is also published by a guy writing for the weekly newspaper from Newberry Michigan who was also given the same hot tip. It has 300 readers. Why should the guy with only 300 readers get protection while the blogger gets none?
What’s the point of giving any protection? Well, to me it’s because informing the public is important. So why is it only important if one person does it but not if another person does it. It seems arbitrary to me. Please clarify if possible.
@Jerk-Face: Wadda ya know? It’s her alright! Like OhForTheLoveOf said it’s amazing the kind of info some people have in their hands. 🙂
Well, this discussion has finally nudged my curiosity bump. Since I publish my blog posts in a few places – including the online edition of a newspaper – I think I will start asking the 1st important question of the “authorities” and see if I can acquire a Press Pass.
I’ll let folks know how it goes over the next week or so.
#13, J-F
You raised a good point; what is the difference between a “blogger” and a “journalist”?
I would suggest a journalist is someone who researches and writes a story on current events for publication. A blogger would be anyone who hosts / posts a web site dedicated to personal or a specific topic(s). A blog would fall into the same mold. I don’t consider DU a blog. To me it is a discussion forum.
As an investigator, regardless of where the story is published, the journalist should have some protections. While the courts have said the First Amendment only applies to the publishing of a story, it should also apply to the construction as well. That would include the journalist’s notes, recordings, records, etc. that could be used to identify or reveal where the background material originated from.
At the same time, there should be limitations. The protections should not be available to shield a person who has committed a crime unless that crime was in the interest of exposing a greater crime or a person is libeled and the perpetrator is hiding behind the journalist protection.
Just my opinion.
So you agree with Fitzgerald that the reporters should have gone to jail in the Valerie Plame leak case? Or is it different if the passing of the secret is itself the crime?
#11 – Maybe that’s why John Dvorak’s blog was so silent during the immigration debate.
Oh, that debate is over? Who won?
#17, Mike,
So you agree with Fitzgerald that the reporters should have gone to jail in the Valerie Plame leak case?
If they shield the criminal then they are aiding him. That in itself should be a crime. If the crime reported was a bureaucrat breaking a secrecy law to report that Bush and crowd were blatantly wiretapping Americans without a warrant then any record that would possibly identify the bureaucrat should be shielded. The small crime is a necessity to reveal the larger crime. Similar to a cop speeding to catch a Bank robber.
Or is it different if the passing of the secret is itself the crime?
So what is your question? The “outing” of an undercover or covert CIA agent is a crime. In the Plame affair the journalists weren’t subpoenaed for what they wrote, but what they were told by Libby and others. They were witnesses, not reporters, used as alibis by Libby and others.
19—You don’t see the direct contradiction between your two paragraphs?
I agree with your statement in the first paragraph and don’t see why it doesn’t control/negate your position in the second paragraph.
If I tape record a message to you and you publish it, THAT should be protected in the revelation of a greater crime, but if I TELL you the same thing, that is discoverable? Too subtle for me.
Yes, there is a small contradiction there. I was just trying to get your position. I say the journalists should have gone to jail, though I’m less sure now given that the prosecutor already knew who the leaker was.
21—You posted a contradiction in order to have a position restated?
You clever bunny!!!!! My post No20 was about Mr Fusions contradiction. Reading your post at 17 seems straightforward to me.
Can get confusing cant it?
http://tinyurl.com/2vzjv5
The state of Tennessee is giving different treatment to website news, WorldNetDaily, than to regular newspapers. This case has a Gore friend suing wnd after they killed Gore in Tennessee.