Proposed legislation wafting through the U.S. Senate, which lawmakers will debate tomorrow, seeks to solidify certain protections for journalists, not for the act of journalism itself.
If two senators get their way, the law could monopolize breaking news, with big-media reporters and editors enjoying legal protections not available to independent journalists.
The proposed law, originally introduced in February as the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 (full text), seeks a federal shield law for journalist. The House passed its version in April.
Currently, the so-called shield laws that allow journalists to keep confidential the identities of their sources or any information acquired through communications with them are state, not federal, law. Some states have strong shield laws for journalists, while others have none to speak of whatsoever. Some exclude criminal proceedings, while others don’t. Deciding what is protected when journalist-source relationships cross state borders can get complicated quickly, and most cases that challenge the confidentiality of a source probably involve investigative reporting that is in the public’s best interest to have available. The courts can’t allow anyone to challenge shield laws in order to slow down reporting.
So it’s probably a good thing that lawmakers are looking at some form of a federal shield law. Problem is, they’re seeking to protect individual journalists when they should look toward protecting the act of journalism itself. Some blogs are characterizing the Senate bill as an assault on free speech. It’s not – but it would effectively give independent journalists less access to authoritative sources. True, most bloggers don’t bother sourcing their information in the first place, but some do.
This isn’t just a semantic difference, given how many citizen journalists and bloggers, be they independent or corporate-sponsored, commit journalism. Lawmakers can go with one of two vastly different pieces of language to define who, exactly, a federal shield law would seek to protect.
In order to cover citizen journalists, bloggers, student journalists, and other news-gatherers, Sens. Chuck Schumer (NY) and Arlen Specter (PA) revised the potential legislation to include anyone who is doing the following things:
(I) conducting interviews;
(II) making direct observation of events; or
(III) collecting, reviewing, or analyzing original writings, statements, communications, reports, memoranda, records, transcripts, documents, photographs, recordings, tapes, materials, data, or other information whether in paper, electronic, or other form
Sens. Diane Feinsetin (CA) and Dick Durbin (IL), however, moved to strike that language, reverting the potential legislation to include only employees or contractors of media companies again. From the Kos article:
Basically, Feinstein and Durbin want to restrict shield law protections for those who are either salaried employees or contractors of big media.
…
This isn’t a partisan issue, it’s one between those who are so stuck in the past, that they can’t fathom a more diverse and expansive media environment — one that is no longer dominated by the NY Times and the TV networks.
Fortunately, as the Nieman Journalism Lab reports, newspaper-industry trade groups want bloggers to be among the protected as well.
If bloggers want to interview sources, the law shouldn’t discourage them from doing so. And in that same vein, Feinstein and Durbin should talk to some bloggers to get up to speed on how this whole journalism thing works today.
Tags: Journalism, Senate, Shield Laws
