1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Federal shield law is practically here...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Dave Kindred, Oct 17, 2007.

Page 2 of 5
  1. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Umm.. yeah.
     
    slappy4428, Oct 18, 2007
    #13
  2. jfs1000

    jfs1000 Member

    So you are in favor of setting up a professionally protected work class? Only people whose significant income comes from journalism? Do you now have to be accredited by the government?

    Anyone at any time can be a journalist. That''s why our profession is different than a doctors or lawyers. Are we going to have to register?

    Think about the longterm impact.
     
    jfs1000, Oct 18, 2007
    #14
  3. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    This rant sounds familiar.
     
    Chi City 81, Oct 18, 2007
    #15
  4. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Ummm... yeah.
     
    slappy4428, Oct 18, 2007
    #16
  5. jfs1000

    jfs1000 Member

    From who? A rant? It's much more thought out than that, better than the arguments I have heard about setting up a government sponsored professional classification.

    This is a good intention that produces bad public policy. With the changing dynamics of journalism (citizen journalists and bloggers) how do we know what a journalist is going to be in 10 years? What happens if you are an independent web blogger who covers his town politics exhaustively. But, you do it as a part time job and don't generate much income from it. It's just you keeping government honest and nothing more. You aren't a journalist?

    Who determines who is a journalist or not? The federal government?

    This is fundamental. We can get into a journalism debate about the chilling effect that these forced compelled testimonies have on investigative journalism. Instead of bad law, we should be going after prosecutorial misconduct and setting up safety nets so journalists don't go to jail needlessly. A shield law is bad policy for our "profession."

    We should have the exact same rights as the guy next to me. Not more.
     
    jfs1000, Oct 18, 2007
    #17
  6. jfs1000

    jfs1000 Member

    Very insightful.
     
    jfs1000, Oct 18, 2007
    #18
  7. Write-brained

    Write-brained Guest

    Read the First Fucking Amendment.
     
    Write-brained, Oct 18, 2007
    #19
  8. Diabeetus

    Diabeetus Active Member

    This thread is making me LOL.
     
    Diabeetus, Oct 18, 2007
    #20
  9. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    It really does get the government into the business of defining who we are. People who would never swing for the moment to the concept of licensing journos seem willing to embrace this uncritically, even though it is a de facto license for one important part of our function.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Oct 18, 2007
    #21
  10. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    And the Ninth.
     
    jgmacg, Oct 18, 2007
    #22
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Legislators (and unfortunately judges who shouldn't be in the business of doing this) have strained much harder to define things that were far more undefinable than who is a journalist. It's not that hard. If you gather and report news for a living you are a journalist. They can feel free to write that into the bill and await my invoice for the 30 seconds of time it took me.

    The reason this sort of legislation has been talked about for more than 30 years--since Branzburg vs. Hayes--but has never been seen through, is that until recently, it wasn't that much of an issue. Reporters weren't under assault from the Justice Department. The irony is that the Bush administration--which is threatening a veto--made this legislation a slam-dunk with the number of attempts to get Federal judges to twist reporters arms with the threat of sending innocent people to jail for reporting info to the public (the horror of it!).

    A strong fourth estate is more necessary than ever because of how close we have been creeping toward Nixontonian ways. This legislation can just strengthen our democracy and increase the chances of transparency by allowing the public to get the truth instead of government-scrubbed propaganda designed to misinform, or worse, to cover up malfeasance.
     
    The Big Ragu, Oct 18, 2007
    #23
  12. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    I haven't read the bill, only the Post's report of it. But seems to me the only definition in play is whether you make a significant part of your living as a "journalist." Not much of a threat there, especially with the judicial system rather than the executive making the call.
     
    Dave Kindred, Oct 18, 2007
    #24
Page 2 of 5
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page