Loading ...
FEDERAL SHIELD LAW MAY ONLY APPLY TO ‘FULL-TIME JOURNALISTS’
Bloggers hoping to gain a little more legal insulation when providing cover to an anonymous source may be left out in the cold.
An important piece of legislation currently being considered by Congress that would shield journalists from having to disclose sources may only apply to “full-time journalists.” That would mean bloggers, freelancers, citizen journalists and others who don’t work professionally in the media business would not be able to legally protect informants.
The House version of the bill would only apply to people who glean significant revenue from journalism, though a broader bill in the Senate would cover anyone “engaged in journalism,” the Citizen Media Law Project reports.
Many people in the media world would welcome a federal shield law, but there’s no good reason for it to involve some sort of income test. While it’s not clear that differentiating between “professional” and “citizen” journalists would have ever been useful in deciding which sources are worthy of protection, it seems especially arbitrary given that anyone with a cell phone can now break news on the Web. [MediaPost]
With political bloggers such as yours truly berating the living daylights out of the Congressional spendoholics, it’s no wonder they would want to be able to SLAPP us around whenever necessary. And what better way than to cut off the ability to rely on anonymous sources. Of course, they would never think of taking that right away from their liberal cohorts in the mainstream media.
Maybe it’s because you’re a paid shill? There is a difference between promoting the public good by uncovering and presenting information – which is the purpose of a free press – and promoting anideological agenda, especially when one receives their salaries from such promotional efforts.
You are not, nor have you ever been a ‘citizen journalist’ because this blog was bought and is paid for by your daddy RQ&A.
Nice try.
Does Congress not understand that bloggers are ” We the People” that they so call, represent????
Why silence the people you represent…….????
OH wait, I get it, You silence the people you represent………….
??
The right has never existed at the federal level, so the ability to rely on anonymous sources can’t be “cut off” if it never existed. However, shield laws do exist in many states — 36 — and judicial decisions and administrative procedures put the number of states with reporters’ privileges at 49. This law would protect journalists only from federal prosecution. You also allude to “taking the right away” from “liberal cohorts in the mainstream media.” Again, you are incorrect — the right or law never existed at the federal level, so it can’t be taken away or reinstated. You are practicing sloppy reportage. You have also ripped — without properly sourcing — two paragraphs from another source. This is one indication of why bloggers – at least bloggers like you – are not deserving of the same legal protections, for the ethical conventions you follow are drastically different than those of practicing, trained, legitimate journalists.
mattie your a moron your blog sucks and i dont care what bloggers write if people want to give them information anonymously they should have the right to.
IJR good fisk, stopGAP – wtf ever, I’m fine with bloggers being afforded shield rights if what they do is journalism, something this site only has a vague and distant notion of. Try again.