Feinstein and Durbin seeking to narrow shield law’s scope
Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin are attempting to narrow the definition of a journalist in the federal shield law under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. Their amendment would limit protection from testifying to professional journalists working for “a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical.” Not included: student journalists, amateur bloggers, or even freelancers working without a contract.
Markos Moulitsas had the news last night. I’ve been on the phone this morning with people who have worked on the bill, and the consensus is that Feinstein and Durbin are introducing the amendment out of national security concerns: If the shield law is too broad, they reason, it could afford protection to criminals and terrorists who claim the mantle of journalism. Neither senator’s office has returned my calls, and it’s not clear if the amendment will be adopted at today’s committee meeting.
The version of the shield law already passed by the House (H. 985) defines a journalist in monetary terms, covering only those who gather and disseminate information “for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood 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 over national-security concerns, is said to support the broader definition.
A number of news-industry groups, including the Newspaper Association of America, are also supporting coverage for amateurs. Kevin Goldberg, general counsel for the American Society of News Editors, told me today: “There are already exemptions for national security in the bill. If the concern is that the guy holding the video camera for an Osama bin Laden tape is not going to have to testify, that’s a little far-fetched.”
Feinstein and Durbin have leverage here: “If those two really stick to this hard and say we won’t pass a bill without this langugage, they could make a lot of trouble because they are the swing Democrats on this bill,” Goldberg said. However, Senators Jon Kyl and Jeff Sessions, both Republicans, are the only members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who are known to oppose the bill in its entirety, so the support of Feinstein and Durbin may not be necessary.
Today’s committee meeting is underway, so we’ll see. In the meantime, you can read the proposed amendment below and try to parse who might or might not be covered. Goldberg said he’s concerned the language, in addition to excluding amateurs, could omit freelance reporters and photographers doing work without a contract. In addition, he said, “depending on how you define periodical, could exclude web-based publications like Slate and Salon.”
Zachary M. Seward | Dec. 3, 2009 | 10:36 a.m.
Tags: American Society of News Editors, Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Kevin Goldberg, Newspaper Association of America, Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee, shield law, White House
Leaving aside the question of amateurs, what about professionals who work for the new breed of nonprofit, online-only sites like where I am, the St. Louis Beacon? With decades of experience each, no one can accuse me and my colleagues of not being veteran journalists. How can a law like this not cover us?
Yeah, “periodical” may cover the St. Louis Beacon and other online-only news sites, but would it kill them to mention the Internet in the bill?
And an update: Today’s meeting ended without a vote on the Feinstein/Durbin amendment or the bill itself. Columbia Journalism Review had good coverage. Senators Kyl and Sessions, who oppose the shield law, attempted to drown it with 25 amendments that still have to be considered. Until next time. —Zach
This “narrowing” is patently and blatantly unconstitutional. By this definition, Thomas Paine would be excluded from the ranks of journalism. Once government assumes the power to decide who is a journalist and who is not, freedom of the press dies in America. And what does financial remuneration have to do with it? This is a bill that would have government “license” journalists. The courts already have ruled on this question. Makes me wonder what Feinstein, whose spouse is a defense contractor, seeks to hide. Maybe something like the subject of my recent journalism? For your consideration:
OBAMA WRONG AT WEST POINT: U.S. DOES TORTURE — ITS OWN CITIZENS
• Regional Homeland Security- administered “fusion centers” use a nationwide microwave/laser radiation “directed energy” weapons system, employing cell towers and satellites, to silently, invisibly torture, impair, slow-kill unconstitutionally “targeted” Americans and their families — an American genocide hiding in plain sight.
For the rest of the story:
http://nowpublic.com/world/obama-wrong-west-point-u-s-does-torture-its-own-citizens
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR (if link is corrupted): http://NowPublic.com/scrivener re: “GESTAPO USA”
“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.