House Says Bloggers Don't Count As Journalists

[Dover]

This came in an email. I haven't seen the bill so won't comment yet.

House Says Bloggers Don't Count As Journalists
Jason Lee Miller | Staff Writer

Forgets the First Amendment

Two versions of a bill in Congress would enshrine a journalist’s right to keep his or her sources confidential, effectively banning the government from forcing journalists to reveal whistleblowers. One version though--the House version--gives an incredibly stupid definition of journalist that excludes not only bloggers, but freelancers, independents, and nonprofit journalists as well.

For the most part, the Senate and House agree on what a journalist’s duties are and what journalism entails:

e regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photography, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

But only the House version, which has more cosponsors than brains apparently, adds to that definition:

"for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person."

So, in effect, if journalism is a hobby or passion you do as a public service, or if you are a freelancer without a boss--both of which easily describe a blogger--then the government reserves the right to force you to tell them who told you something, much like the government tried to do with New York Times journalist Judy Miller under the Bush Administration.

Apparently our "representatives” have a real problem with citizen journalism done for the sake of journalism and for the good of democracy, and believe protecting the "free flow of information" is only reserved for officially approved press. No bloggers, no patriotic radicals, no underground agitator pamphleteers like the ones who actually founded and fought for this country to begin with.

Hate to (once again) school our freaking government about the freaking Constitution they freaking pledge to uphold, but this is Congress making a law abridging the freedom of the press, a violation of the First Amendment. I might be more sympathetic if they missed one further down the list, BUT IT’S THE FIRST FREAKING ONE.

By defining who is and who is not considered press, and therefore deciding who is entitled to special protection--in this case, especially, where they base it on who does it for money and who does it for passion (hint: the latter one is more likely to dig up something that matters)--the House of Representatives are doing us all a huge disservice if they don’t change that language.

>> Should bloggers be afforded the same
protections as traditional journalists? <<
Let Us Know What You Think

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/02/27/house-says-bloggers-dont-count-as-journalists#comments

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Only corporations may tell the truthiness. Smirk. " Congress

eom

[ixion]

2. more unconstitutional BS

I get really tired of reading about unconstitutional crap being floated as credible legislation.

[mmonk]

3. Please don't include Judy Miller.

She was spreading disinformation on behalf of people in the government.

[geiger]

4. Define "blogger."

[KamaAina]

5. Not even if they're wearing pajamas?

:sarcasm:

[cascadiance]

11. Maybe if you're a gay hooker you can get an exception?

Oh wait, I guess the Bush administration was a little more "open" in their policies, huh...


:sarcasm:

[crikkett]

17. I rather think he did it for 'substantial financial gain' n/t

[KamaAina]

26. Only if you're a *bald* gay hooker

:tinfoilhat:

[NOW tense]

6. What happens when most of the newspapers

go out of business?

[dustbunnie]

7. They'll shift ad dollars over to net efforts.

But in this case, journalists will still be employed and paid for their work.

[bvar22]

19. The handful of those remaining....

....will be so much easier to control.

kinda like now.
Bush could NOT have invaded Iraq without the cheer-leading support of consolidated American Media.

WE should demand some kind of Constitutional Amendment that guarantees Free Speech, Freedom of The Press, and guarantees Equal Rights and Equal Protections for everybody.

[dustbunnie]

8. Just a question. Isn't this much the way it works now?

Back in the day patriotic radicals and underground agitator pamphleteers were just tortured or ended if they didn't give up info that was deemed of a sensitive nature.

Anyone sitting on a street corner handing out a home printed news journal certainly had no right to keep sources confidential, so I'm not seeing why the average blogger would today either. Not being a doo-stirer here, I just don't get what's changed?

[jimshoes]

9. Just remember, if you are subpoenaed,

you simply refuse to show up and nothing ever becomes of it. Just ask Karl the Treasonist scofflaw no show.

[zeemike]

10. now that is bad advice

Don't you know that those are perks afforded to the elite?
That average citizen would get their ass thrown in jail....but you know that, and so do most Americans by now.

[barbtries]

12. there are bloggers

and there are journalists who blog. the house's efforts to disenfranchise the latter stink. the bill should die.

[eShirl]

13. what is a blog if not a journal?

[formercia]

14. Who was responsible for that language in the bill?

Some stay-behind reich-wing staffer or some member of Congress? Anyone who passed the Bar and wrote that clap-trap should be disbarred.

[lostnfound]

15. Call it the anti-Ben-Franklin language.. or anti-Thomas Edison..

In 1862, at age 15, Edison published and printed his own newspaper on the train and sold it to passengers.

Self-publishing one's own journalistic writing isn't a modern invention. It's part of America's roots.

[crikkett]

16. Time to organize.... bloggers can find a way to fit the definition.

"for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person."

So, in effect, if journalism is a hobby or passion you do as a public service, or if you are a freelancer without a boss--both of which easily describe a blogger--then the government reserves the right to force you to tell them who told you something, much like the government tried to do with New York Times journalist Judy Miller under the Bush Administration.

We're creative people. The word 'substantial' is a loophole. So is 'affiliate'.
If this becomes law (doubt it will, knock wood) then we can find a way to fit into this category.

Think of HuffPost's "off the bus" - that's an affiliate program isn't it?
For that matter, couldn't any user with a DU journal be an affiliate?

[BlooInBloo]

20. No. Those who are to be watched don't get to decide who the watchers are...

That defeats the whole fucking point of watching. Sheesh.

[crikkett]

21. You don't need to swear at me,

you weak, defeatist asshole.

Where the hell's your blog? There may be a reason you don't think anyone will pick it up.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Yah, but it's funner that way.

[BlooInBloo]

18. The DC echo chamber seeking to close the door on those who got it right.

[Missy Vixen]

23. I'm a blogger

I knew my blog was getting some notice when I started getting Astroturf-type posts in my comments. ;-)

In the meantime, I can pretty much predict who's co-sponsoring and pushing this bill, can't you?

[geek tragedy]

24. So, every person with a blog is now a journalist and immune

from testifying in criminal trials?

Come on. Blogs are not journalism.

[JitterbugPerfume]

25. And the times they are a changin'

bloggers will not be ignored for long. The news business is bleeding with established newspapers going belly up every week and TV news becoming more and more polarised. The field is wide open for bloggers.