Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Newsonomics: It’s looking like Gannett will be acquired by GateHouse — creating a newspaper megachain like the U.S. has never seen
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Sept. 17, 2009, 9 a.m.

Shield law: House and Senate differ on who’s a journalist

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on a federal shield law today that would protect journalists from subpoenas for their confidential sources — that is, if legislators can agree on who counts as a journalist.

A version of the shield law already passed by the House (H.R. 985) casts the issue largely in financial terms (emphasis added):

The term “covered person” means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public 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.

That definition would exclude amateurs of any sort, whether student reporters or bloggers with a day job, not to mention to anyone in the grey area of citizen journalism. The Senate’s bill (S. 448) was originally far more expansive, covering anyone “who is engaged in journalism,” but the version likely to be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee today gets more specific, while steering clear of the “livelihood” question. It would shield people who:

(i) with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest, regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes on such matters by—
(I) conducting interviews;
(II) making direct observation of events; or
(III) collecting, reviewing, or analyzing original writings, statements, communications, reports, memoranda, records, transcripts, documents, photographs, recordings, tapes, materials, data, or other information whether in paper, electronic, or other form; and
(ii) has such intent at the inception of the newsgathering process;

Kevin Goldberg, legal counsel for the American Society of News Editors, told me yesterday that he and other press associations “would be very happy with that portion of the bill if it gets through.” He said the House’s conception of a journalist was too narrow but that the definition would have to be specific enough to avoid abuse of the new law, if it’s passed: “How do you differentiate between a blogger who acts as a journalist and someone who might create a website just to avail thmeselves of this privilege?”

If the Judiciary Committee approves the shield law and it’s passed by the full Senate, the next step would be resolving crucial differences between the House and Senate versions. Other portions of the bill, like what kind of information should be exempt from subpoenas, are likely to be more contentious than the definition of a journalist. Either way, both chambers exclude terrorists and terrorist organizations from the shield law’s protection — although, of course, the definition of terrorism can be an equally sticky matter.

POSTED     Sept. 17, 2009, 9 a.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Newsonomics: It’s looking like Gannett will be acquired by GateHouse — creating a newspaper megachain like the U.S. has never seen
A combined GannHouse (Gatenet?) would own 1 out of every 6 daily newspapers in America. The goal? Buy two or three more years to figure out how to make money in digital.
Local news projects rush to fill The Vindicator’s void, with the McClatchy-Google network putting down roots
“We’re ultimately trying to do this as small and nimble as possible so that we can be seeing what’s working and throw out what’s not — and quickly being able to shift in a way that’s a little bit harder when you’re working with a 150-year-old newspaper.”
Hey comment mods, you doin’ okay? A new study shows moderating uncivil comments reduces the moderator’s trust in news
“The toll of moderating uncivil comments may be much stronger for moderators putting in several hours or a full day.”