Attorney General Rob McKenna has proposed a "shield law" to protect journalists and their confidential sources. The text of the proposed law is here. When this was announced in early November I wondered aloud whether the bill defined "news media" broadly enough to cover non-traditional news gatherers (e.g. bloggers and other citizen journalists) who are not regularly employed as reporters but function as reporters occasionally and/or without compensation.
Unfortunately, the bill is specifically not intended to apply to non-traditional citizen journalists, unless they can demonstrate that they earn a "substantial portion of his or her livelihood" from disseminating news. (A quote from the AG's office is at the bottom of the extended entry). The income test is a misguided restriction. I encourage the Attorney General and the legislature to modify the definition of "news media" to cover non-traditional and uncompensated reporters, such as bloggers. I would oppose the bill without this modification --
It's unclear that the "substantial portion of income" test would actually apply to a lot of bloggers, myself included. Although Sound Politics earns some money from advertisements and reader contributions, the funds have been used only to cover expenses, with the surplus held in reserve for future projects. Even if all of the earnings were paid to the writers (who have other sources of income), who knows whether that would meet somebody's interpretation of the vague "substantial portion" standard.
Much of the news I've broken about the ongoing fiascos in King County Elections has been based on tips from confidential sources. (Not anonymous sources, but insiders speaking to me on condition of confidentiality to protect themselves from a legitimate fear of retaliation). These sources came to me instead of going to mainstream reporters, because they knew I would do a better job of following up on their leads, and I did. Without my confidential sources' leads and my follow-up, a lot more of the election problems would have been safely covered-up by Ron Sims and Dean Logan. The public interest was served by getting this information out, even though I'm not drawing a salary for doing this. If this law passed in its present form, it would create a legal distinction between "mainstream" journalist and non-traditional journalist that could have a chilling effect on a source's willingness to share valuable information with the only journalists that would actually disseminate the information to the public.
Any shield law should be based on a functional definition of journalist, not a definition based on how much a journalism earns from their journalism, let alone what percentage of their income derives from other activities. This shield law, in its present discriminatory form, is a kind of industrial protectionism for the decaying old-guard of American journalism.
--
Assistant Attorney General Greg Overstreet, point person on the shield bill, sent me this e-mai:
I wanted to let you know that I answered a reporter's question about whether you would be covered by our bill. The reporter was Greg Piper from a Washington DC technology magazine. He asked me if a logger like the Shark would be covered by the privilege in our bill. I said the key question is whether you earned a "substantial portion" of your livelihood reporting news and that I didn't know whether you did. I said the medium of communication is not the deciding factor; instead our bill looks at whether the person invoking the privilege is (in loose terms) a paid journalist. I noted that I see ads on your site so you must derive some income from your blog, I just don't know how much. I told him that a logger like you would not automatically be excluded from coverage because you report through the internet instead of a printing press. I added that I didn't have the necessary "substantial portion" facts in front of me to know whether you would be covered by the privilege in our bill.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 22, 2005 12:32 PM | Email ThisWhen we were drafting the bill, we looked at other states' reporters privilege statutes and found some to be more inclusive and other to be less so. Our goal was to be in the middle of pack. I think we are.
Certainly you're correct that a law that somehow separates you from "paid journalists" is wrong, but the cure is not to broaden the definition of "journalist" but to give up the entire endeavor.
My speech, and other behavior related to it, is entitled to exactly the same protections that some apparently want to extend only to the Joni Balters of this world.
Posted by: Kirk Parker on December 22, 2005 12:54 PMI think things work just fine the way they are now!
Posted by: Mike on December 22, 2005 01:05 PMOr what about an unpaid intern?
This is a bad law.
Posted by: Timothy on December 22, 2005 01:05 PMDepending on what is said and how it is said, it could considered libel and they could be sued. If they refuse to give up their "source", they could lose and be fined up the wahoo.
Posted by: Mike H on December 22, 2005 01:39 PMExactly. Under this law, the first thing Ron Sims and Dean Logan would do is sue the Shark. Stefan would be forced to give up the names of the employees in open court, or face a contempt of court charge.
When the story dies down, Shark's sources are promptly fired from their jobs at KCE. Other potential sources, seeing how easy it is for King Ron and the court Jester to take away their jobs, keep their traps shut.
No more leaked info going out that would jeopardize Ron and Dean's KCE fraud machine. dems control King County with a free hand and can set about trashing the rest of our rights ;)
Posted by: Steve_dog on December 22, 2005 01:52 PMIt gives 'journalists' (paid or unpaid) far too much incentive to credit made-up stories to made-up 'anonymous sources'. Personally, I see the likelihood of the paid ones to do so as greater than the unpaid ones, because they're far more used to the power of their stories to damage their political opponents. If there are questions that such power corrupts, look at the New York Times and think again.
And if the legal scriveners need a test for the pedigree or authority of a 'journalist', they'd better reach much farther than their position on some ink-stained payroll. If the editor of a paper, or producer of TV news, needs some like-minded hatchet-molls to advance the slanted crusade of the day, OF COURSE there's a payroll to put them on. While someone who's pursuing a story by committing extensive real research, for sheer mental curiosity, isn't likely to be hired by publishers either crusading or corporate.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on December 22, 2005 01:52 PMThe abuse by too broadly allowing confidentiality to stand is boggling....
Posted by: karl on December 22, 2005 02:03 PMI'm guessing Mr. Overstreet doesn't read too many blogs, which may explain his apparently slanted view of what constitutes journalism.
Posted by: TB on December 22, 2005 02:58 PMOf course since most reporters are liberals these phantom "sources" most often appear during Republican adminstrations.
Posted by: Nick on December 22, 2005 03:25 PMSeriously, using income in this definition is asinine. If a reporter did his/her work for free, why shouldn't they get the same protection under the law? Just another example of big government using its power to preserve the status quo.
Echoing TB: I thought a logger derived the majority of income from cutting down trees.
Posted by: Regret on December 22, 2005 03:38 PMI see some of you are waking up to face the fact that our state Republican establishment (even the most popular of them) do not share our values. I just hope you don't fall asleep again. When conservatives wake up, we can take back our party.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on December 22, 2005 03:41 PMThe attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects;
See: Winston Smith
Posted by: jimg on December 22, 2005 04:50 PMWhy would you need to look at section 6(b), which has an income test, when you could apparently rely on section 6(a), which simply requires that you be "any person or entity that is in the regular business of disseminating news or information to the public by any means..."?
Those definitions of "news media" are listed as alternatives. You don't need to fit into all three subsections -- just one will do.
Are you not in the "regular business" by virtue of your almost daily posts at Sound Politics?
Posted by: Micajah on December 22, 2005 05:21 PMFor My RIGHT Friends:
Here's wishing all of You a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah and a Happy New Year!
I think what the last few decades have shown is that the journalism profession does not deserve any special consideration or rights. Their credibility is just above a rat. Holding them up as something special IS A JOKE.
Face it Stefan, you and all journalists from all media are no different than I and need to live by the same rules I do.
Posted by: DRM on December 22, 2005 07:34 PMSorry, Stefan, but this is not supportable.
Posted by: Clean House on December 22, 2005 07:49 PM1) A shield law is not needed now and (for my part) not wanted.
2) Bloggers should not be lumped together with "traditional" journalists, misguided shield law or no.
Posted by: Reporterward on December 22, 2005 08:34 PMThis is what you call a RINO payback.
Posted by: jaybo on December 22, 2005 09:28 PM
"Journalists" have not shown they have the ethics to use such protection responsibly.
Well, here's the scoop! We're going to place rakes on the lawns of prominent Republicans everywhere and make it all look like an accident..... heh....heh
Posted by: Winston Smith on December 23, 2005 07:00 AMBut what does anyone have a right in the first place to ask Stefan who told him of the shenanigans at King County- anonymous or not?
If I were in Stefan's shoes, I would still refuse to answer unnecessary questions in a probe.- with or without a shield law.
It seems that people think the investigators can ask any question- legitimate or not. Aren't they restricted to the content of their probe?
But again, after thinking about it, there is the Fitzpatrick probe and the indictment against Delay in Texas where overzealous prosecutors go outside their authority.
Posted by: swatter on December 23, 2005 07:25 AMYOU MUST BE THINKING OF SOMETHING ELSE, THESE SHIELDS DO NOT HAVE WINGS.
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on December 23, 2005 08:43 AM