Posted on 07/21/2013 5:32:42 AM PDT by lbryce
Who’s a Journalist? A Question With Many Facets and One Sure Answer
Behind almost every correction in The Times, there is a story. In the case of the correction about Alexa O’Brien, the story is a particularly interesting one.
The correction, which was in Wednesday’s paper, read:
An article on Tuesday about the role of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in the case of Edward J. Snowden, the former computer contractor who leaked details of National Security Agency surveillance, referred incompletely to Alexa O’Brien, who has closely followed the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of providing military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. While Ms. O’Brien has participated in activist causes like Occupy Wall Street and US Day of Rage, she also works as an independent journalist; she is not solely an activist.
After the article was published, Ms. O’Brien e-mailed me and others at The Times, making the strong case that she is a journalist and should be referred to as one. I passed it along to the corrections desk. The Times, to its credit, considered the case and decided to run a correction.
But this raises a question that is very much of the current moment. Who – and what – is a journalist? It’s not just about semantics.
There is a strong legal component to this discussion: Who will be covered by a federal shield law that would give legal protection to journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources, if it ever comes to pass? Will it cover only established news organizations or those who get paid for news gathering? Or does it cover everyone with a Facebook page?
(Excerpt) Read more at publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Reading Margaret Sullivan's litany of complaints, differences between journalists, the rarified professionals as guardians of truth, justice and the American way and you can see why bloggers are considered with opprobrium as riff-raff, with jourmnalists having bloggers removed hog-tied into tbloggger jail to await their deserved comeuppance.
It's akin to the caste system in India where journalists are the elite and bloggers as untouchables.
Just remember one thing , only a genuine professional journalist, flying high up to in the stratospheric heights they so richly deserve can elicit a bona-fide,genuine Barf Alert.
The issue was argued here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes
In a fiercely split decision, the Court ruled 5-4 against the existence of reportorial privilege in the Press Clause of the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White declared that the petitioners were asking the Court “to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.” Justice White acknowledged the argument that refusing to recognize such a privilege would undermine the ability of the press to gather news, but wrote that “from the beginning of the country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished.”
“Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.”
Thank you for the enlightenment.
Once “reportorial privilege” is established in law, the First Amendment will cease to exist.
What happens is the government will have to have some sort of “licensing process” to determine just who can commit journalism. If you work for the NY Times, you can report, but a start-up blogger can’t. And if they can do that, then they can certainly tell you WHAT to report.
Presto! State-sponsored reporting. Which is what the NY Times would like to see.
Reading the Constitution leaves me scratching my head as to why any reporter is treated differently than any other citizen with regard to the law.
This business of “protecting one’s sources” is an invented Constitutional caveat.
Not that I expect these nimrods to know anything about history, but 'press' to early America just meant writng something for general distribution...it wasn't a profession.
It still ain’t a “profession.” It’s a trade.
Ever notice when scanning the various newspapers , many of them contain COMMENT sections at the bottom of the articles !?
NYT does NOT contain any such. Its a one way mis-info street.
A journalist is someone who is defined as one by the NYTimes and the Obama administration. Someone’s category as approved journalist can be revoked, if he deviates from the correct interpretation of events.
Looks like the issue is going to get some more attention and soon.
July 19, 2013
Court Tells Reporter to Testify in Case of Leaked C.I.A. Data
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — In a major ruling on press freedoms, a divided federal appeals court on Friday ruled that James Risen, an author and a reporter for The New York Times, must testify in the criminal trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency official charged with providing him with classified information.
In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled that the First Amendment does not protect reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them. A district court judge who had ruled in Mr. Risen’s case had said that it did.
snip
The majority based its ruling on a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Branzburg v. Hayes, which rejected an effort by a reporter to avoid testifying before a grand jury. Mr. Risen’s lawyers had argued that the 5-4 ruling was ambiguous and left room open for Judge Brinkema to shield him from testifying in the criminal trial. In his dissent on Friday, Judge Gregory said that he would recognize a qualified reporter’s privilege in criminal cases. He also argued that prosecutors had enough other evidence to make their case without Mr. Risen’s testimony.
snip
I blog on FreeRepublic; Ergo I’m a journalist.
There shouldn’t be a special set of laws for journalists—so make ‘em apply to everyone or to none at all.
The definition of a journalist?
Anyone in the MSM who voted for Obama, wrote about the godliness of Obama advocated for Obama, and attacked Obamas enemies is NOT a journalist.
The two closest things to a journalist is Sheryl Atkinnson and Jake Tapper. The rest are Mediacrats.
Correct.
You may note that in most of the “leakage” cases the reporter conspired with the leaker to commit a crime.
Yet no reporter or media outlet has ever, to my knowledge, been successfully prosecuted for such a crime.
But if you or I conspired with the same leaker to get the same information to a foreign power, we’d go to jail.
I see no justification for this privilege to break the laws anywhere in the Constitution.
google Josh Wolf. Spent at least 160 days in jail
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Journalist-jailed-for-refusing-to-give-up-tapes-2492067.php
Not even if one bit her on the ass.
Thanks lbryce.
Not exactly the same thing. He shot some video footage he refused to give to prosecutors, he didn’t conspire with anyone to commit a felony.
But I’m glad to see some journalists being shown they’re not above the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.