Comments on: Shield law: Definition of “journalist” gets professionalized

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:58:00 +0000

Doctors shouldn’t be licensed, either. Doing so is not in the interest of consumers, but it does vastly increase physician salaries and charges. Doctors, nurses, drug companies, and hospitals are licenses and heavily regulated, yet an estimated 200,000 Americans die each year due to preventable medical errors.

By: zune accessories

zune accessories — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:29:12 +0000

My Pingback…

[…]I always take life with a grain of salt, …plus a slice of lemon, …and a shot of tequila.[…]…

By: Five & One: November 22, 2010 » North by Northwestern

Five & One: November 22, 2010 » North by Northwestern — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 04:47:42 +0000

[...] legislation to define the term “journalist” and establish uniform rights and regulations failed in 2009. With the proliferation of blogging and other non-professional journalism, a vast number of people [...]

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:22:42 +0000

Earn First Amendment Protection?

It seems to me the First Amendment, as well as the other nine, are rights, not privileges. They aren’t things to be earned. They aren’t up for licensing. I can understand concerns with respect to declining professionalism, but I don’t think perverting our First Amendment Right to a free press is any kind of solution. I do not think the cause of this decline has anything to do with bloggers or the First Amendment. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that since the 80s PR firms realized the best way to be effective was to hire the good news people away from the papers. They were terribly under paid and over worked. If anything would raise the professionalism of media “professionals,” it would be to make half of what their counterparts who work as PR consultants.

I don’t see how restricting the scope of the First Amendment would solve the problem or how it is even Constitutional. It would seem to me the fundamental nature of freedom of the press is that the government can’t infringe on the freedom of the press. Isn’t defining who are or what is the press infringing on that freedom?

By: Weekly Reading Roundup: Who’s a Journalist? | BlueKite Marketing

Weekly Reading Roundup: Who’s a Journalist? | BlueKite Marketing — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 04:39:42 +0000

[...] Shield Law: Definition of Journalist gets Professionalized – The Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard reports on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee adopting an amendment that does not offer protection to amateur journalists (aka unpaid bloggers). According to their definition, you must be a paid employee of a news organization to qualify as a journalist. Do you agree? [...]

By: SoCalGal

SoCalGal — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:43:27 +0000

Well, William Luther, who licenses physicians and CPAs and lawyers? You’ve got to prove you’re reasonably trained to be a physician, CPA or lawyer. Why should just anyone be able to call himself a journalist, get on TV and start influencing policy and people’s opinions? Think, man! Why should you be able to call yourself a joornalist, say anything you wish and be under the protection of a shield law?

By: ‘Citizen journalism’ still has much to prove « Thought Starters

‘Citizen journalism’ still has much to prove « Thought Starters — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:18:12 +0000

[...] debate, currently raging everywhere from the confines of the smallest net forums to the floors of American lawmakers – “Why am I writing/posting/sharing/youtubing/flikring this?” The egoistical temperament [...]

By: William Luther

William Luther — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:41:09 +0000

License the right to protection? Who gets to authorize the license? Where would one have to apply and who decides thumb up or thumb down. The emperor?

By: SoCalGal

SoCalGal — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:25:55 +0000

My new mantra: License! License! License ‘em all! I can’t get my teeth cleaned without seeing a licensed hygienist. Why are joooornalists not licensed? For cryin’ out loud, people are running around, influencing policy, spreading their venom on television and in print, with no training whatsoever. I swear, Satan himself runs the media. It’s his instrument of terror. The problem is medialoid–defined as the infiltration of tabloid journalism into traditional media sources, including the proliferation of sensationalism, triviality and disregard for privacy, with particular emphasis on news coverage of the sports and entertainment industries. Medialoid thinks they make the rules by which society must live. They think they define what is and is not free speech. They have no morals, no decency and no shame. What we have is not qualified reporters reporting on newsworthy topics but packs of bloodthirsty jackals always on the prowl for their next victim. Ka-ching! They hide behind the First Amendment while they tear down society by pandering to humankind’s basest instincts. From their presumed position as the final arbiters of what people should think and what they should be thinking about, they smell blood in the water and circle the victim like a bunch of braying hyenas. Ka-ching! I hope you jooornalists are all proud of yourselves. Michael Jackson…now Tiger Woods. Tiger isn’t the one who should be ashamed—except before his wife. Medialoid should be ashamed for the disreputable way they behave when a high profile personality stumbles. Ugh. I hate the media. You all make me sick. Shield indeed. From what? Clean up your act and maybe we’ll talk about a shield.

By: SoCalGal

SoCalGal — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:14:02 +0000

“Citizen journalists,” my ass. It’s time to professionalize journalism. If you want to be considered a journalist and gain First Amendment protection reasonably afforded a journalist, get some training that means something. Earn it and don’t give me that Thomas Paine crap. Journalism as a profession is going down the toilet at an accelerating speed. In fact, it’s not even a profession, it’s a J-O-B. If you haven’t graduated from an accredited university with a degree in journalism with at least one course in ethics and media law, by what standard, if any, are you even calling yourself a journalist? Is Diane Dimond a journalist? Hell, no, but she calls herself one. As far as shielding bloggers, screw that. No one even knows who they are. Journalism is in Wild West mode and needs regulating. If it doesn’t regulate itself, I see the time when the government will have to step in and regulate it in some way, thereby doing damage to the First Amendment. However, that amendment says that “Congress” shall pass no laws abridging press freedom; the President or the Supreme Court could certainly do something. I’m glad I saw this article. I’m going to write to my senator, Diane Feinstein, and urge her to stick to her guns. Not everyone is a “journalist” just because they, or even their employer, calls themselves a journalist. Poor Walter Cronkite and other giants of real journalism; they’re spinning in their graves.

By: Feinstein and Durbin seeking to narrow shield law’s scope » Nieman Journalism Lab

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:43:20 +0000

[...] or for substantial financial gain.” The Senate has waffled between a similarly professional definition and one that would cover amateurs. The White House, which had dragged its feet on the shield law [...]

By: Shield law: Definition of a journalist still up for grabs » Nieman Journalism Lab

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:37:29 +0000

[...] and the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are plenty of moving parts here, but I’ve been focused on the law’s definition of a journalist, as have others. The compromise takes an expansive [...]

By: Geanne Rosenberg: Protections for journalists shouldn’t just apply to the ones collecting paychecks » Nieman Journalism Lab

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:02:14 +0000

[...] starters, they’ll need shield laws that clearly extend to those acting as journalists and performing journalistic functions, whether or not those [...]

By: Full Dis « Oil for the Lamps

Full Dis « Oil for the Lamps — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:17:44 +0000

[...] not get money to do so, may not be covered by shield laws. A good review of this can be found at Neiman Journalism Lab. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Shield law for bloggers? Maybe in NYHawaii [...]

By: The Wild Hunt » The Free Things I Receive

The Wild Hunt » The Free Things I Receive — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:55:05 +0000

[...] promotional copies, you better start crafting your disclaimer statement now. This, along with plans in congress to exempt citizen journalists and bloggers from the shield law protections is quickly creating a journalism class-system that privileges money and institutions above content [...]

By: Articles from Friday « Out of Print

Articles from Friday « Out of Print — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:11:55 +0000

[...] Students and bloggers not covered under proposed Shield Law [...]

By: You Get The . Info » Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don’t Deserve Shield Protection – 1608th Edition

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:29:15 +0000

[...] front. Unfortunately, as the Senate was working on its version of the bill, it’s apparently decided that the law should only apply to professional journalists who make their living that way. If you happen to just write a blog post that exposes some sort of [...]

By: The Enlightened Despot » Blog Archive » Chuck Schumer Wants to Put Me on the Stand

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:24:32 +0000

[...] not me personally, but anyone who reports on things outside of the context of his 9-5. Schumer is one of the sponsors of the senate version of a federal shield law, which would allow [...]

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:39:19 +0000

I don’t think this will hold up to constitutional muster, as it wouldn’t apply to freelance either.

By: Jean P

Jean P — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:04:47 +0000

I was a working journalist for more than 35 years, and I say to hell with a shield law. If I am doing my job and not breaking existing laws, not violating anyone’s constitutional rights (corny as that may sound in the 21st century), why do I need a shield law?

By: ２００９年９月２４日（木） « maclalala:link

２００９年９月２４日（木） « maclalala:link — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:52 +0000

[...] Why Did Apple Approve Spotify? | Techdirt 〈アップルが Spotify を承認したのはなぜ？〉 [...]

By: Paul William Tenny

Paul William Tenny — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:35:04 +0000

“As I observed last week, the shield law obviously needs a definition that limits its scope, but the professional definition, which now seems inevitable, would exclude student journalists as well as bloggers with a day job.”

These laws would create a new and separate class of people that have rights that nobody else does. They seem like a good idea but the result is unacceptable. It doesn’t matter how broad the definition is, if it doesn’t encompass everyone, then it’s a violation of the equal protection clause.

The press have survived just fine without a federal shield law and they don’t need one now. Let them live under the law just like the rest of us have to.

By: Joshua K.

Joshua K. — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:46:05 +0000

Only comment–besides BOO HISS!–is that Chuck Schumer ain’t no liberal. He’s just a corporate lackey from New York who picked the party that is more likely to hold office in New York.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:41:24 +0000

If there’s a need for a shield law, let it protect journalism, not the specific people we call journalists.

This bill is a trap — a licensing system. Not surprising that the DC press corps seems to be in favor, but this is poison.

By: TwittLink - Your headlines on Twitter

TwittLink - Your headlines on Twitter — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:31:45 +0000

[...] Shield law: Definition of “journalist” gets professionalized » Nieman Journalism Lab [...]

By: Johnny Honestly

Johnny Honestly — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:11:43 +0000

BOOOO CHUCK BOOOO

By: Rob Scott

Rob Scott — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:47:49 +0000

This is a ludicrous definition! I’d recommend leaving the country then publishing what you like online…

By: David Hobby

David Hobby — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:47:24 +0000

As someone who worked in traditional print media for 20 years as a staff photographer, and has since worked as a F/T blogger for the last three, this is about the stupidest framework for the shield law that I can imagine.

Any law that effectively defines journalism by the specific medium which conveys the information will be out of date the day it goes into effect.

By: Carter

Carter — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:45:20 +0000

look its liberals who proposed the change hmm

By: Lenny Smith

Lenny Smith — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:35:47 +0000

So does this mean that newspapers that shut down their printing presses and go only online will not be protected either? Scary how this stuff works its way into the mix.