Attorney General Rob McKenna has proposed a journalist shield law for Washington State, and the bill is now making its way through the legislature. As Stefan mentioned in December, the bill defines a journalist as someone who derives a "substantial portion of his or her livelihood" from journalistic activities (or who expects to, such as a book author). Most bloggers would not be protected under that standard.
McKenna spoke this morning at the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition, and I had an opportunity to ask him about the standard. He mentioned that his office is having discussions about broadening the definition but seemed committed to the proposed definition in lieu of a better one. However, he did mention one provision that may help bloggers become protected.
The specific example involved KBCS, the radio station of Bellevue Community College. The reporters for KBCS are volunteers, yet they would still be shielded because they are working on behalf of an organization that is protected. The bill provides broad protection for those acting in behalf of a news organization.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that bloggers could use this to gain coverage. If Sound Politics incorporated as a news organization and I receive a tip as a contributor to the site, reasonably I should be shielded against disclosing my source regardless of the income I derive personally as a reporter.
Incorporating and keeping current with the necessary paperwork is expensive and time consuming. It is not something to be done casually. But organization could reduce the burden on individual bloggers. An enterprising attorney might offer a "shield kit," a standardized way for a blogger to incorporate his blog and receive protection. Or a group of bloggers could establish a joint operating agreement under which they all publish on behalf of a single entity and split the costs of incorporation and hosting.
I would prefer to see the bill amended to change the standard from income to function – act a journalist, be protected like one. But I'm hopeful bloggers can gain protection under the current bill. Perhaps some of our readers who are attorneys could weigh in on the feasibility of my proposals.
Posted by Andy MacDonald at January 14, 2006 12:26 PM | Email ThisWe are witnessing the transformation of both news and editorial journalism as blogs become more and active.
Posted by: Gary on January 14, 2006 01:38 PMThe law clearly does not (repeat, not) require you to be a corporation or an employee of a news organization of any kind. It simply requires you to be a "person." Aren't you a person?!!!
Am I the only one who reads those words and gives them their ordinary meaning?
Here's the previous comment:
Why 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 PM
Check out the City Journal magazine for an excellent article on the devastating consequences of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and other forms of suppression that the left is actively trying to implement. Link, below:
City Journal Magazine: The Left's Campaign To Rein In Political Discourse
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 14, 2006 07:47 PMProtect them from what? Being complicit in a crime? They aren't lawyers, doctors or priests. They are in the business of providng information to the public. If they can hide behind confidentiality rules, how are we to know what they say is worth anything?
Posted by: Janet S on January 14, 2006 08:16 PMFrom what I understand, there hasn’t been a case in the history of this state where a journalist has lost this privilege a case in court. Furthermore, a reporter who did find themselves in such a situation could rely upon the legal assistance of several powerful press associations, which most of us are members or allied with one way or another.
The final nail in the coffin, in my mind, comes from McKenna’s own lips. During an interview on a recent John Carlson show, the Attorney General admitted himself that his bill will not protect state journalists during a federal investigation. The very reason why Rob McKenna put this legislation forward in the first place was because of the federal Valerie Plame case (an asymmetrical and unusual case at best, as folks have discussed elsewhere). This law doesn’t even have the teeth to protect reporters from the same situation which inspired it.
There are those of us in the field of journalism who are trying to fix the current flaws in today’s modern media. All the reporter shield law does is to continue to reward and enable bad journalists to write bad stories with bad sources using bad data. We are all familiar with news reports that are dependent entirely (and shockingly far too often) on so-called anonymous sources, on faulty information or with bias one way or the other. To me, all this proposed law does is hinder any efforts to reform the state of a very important American institution which is broken and desperately needs and deserves to be fixed.
As for blogs - this will no doubt be unpopular with many of those here at Sound Politics - on the whole bloggers are not journalists. The very nature of blogs and the reason for their existence was and is to be anti-media. Bloggers are not journalists just in the same way that people who write letters to the editor that appear frequently in newspapers are not journalists.
Scrolling down the side of the of the Sound Politics website one can find the links to 43 different bloggers’ websites. Each of the sites has its own merits and drawbacks and I’ve developed a great deal of affection and respect for some of you guys. But having a computer and a little bit of bandwidth does not a journalist make.
There are various different mechanisms that freelancers and bloggers can use to obtain official press status. They are not terribly difficult but the process does require a bit of professionalism and stick-to-it-ness.
Andy McDonald’s suggestion of incorporating and creating a working news organization has merits and is probably a pretty good strategy. It is the equivalent of creating a new legal publication. For instance, the Federal Way Mirror is a relatively new legal newspaper whose employees enjoy the lofty rights and responsibilities of “journalists”. It is entirely different than the City of Federal Way or Federal Way School District newsletters. The newspaper and news letters carry, at times, exactly the same information but they need to maintain separate legal status. I feel the same analogy applies to blogs.
I agree with your reasons why this law is not needed. However I disagree with your definition of "professional journalist". If the likes of Dan Rather and Jason Blair are what is to be considered a "journalist" then I'd take bloggers any day of the week.
A degree from a university does not a journalist make.
jour·nal·ism Audio pronunciation of "journalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jűrn-lzm)
n.
1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.
Today's modern media fails to meet the definition, especially #3.
Posted by: pbj on January 14, 2006 10:28 PMThe First Amendment does not confer any special rights on any profession, but, rather, guarantees the right to speak and publish, equally, to all Americans. Our State Laws should be no different.
Journalists in this state have special protection from libel suits (a damage cap), not available to the common man, that enable wealthy media to intentionally lie about public figures without fear of serious consequences. Why should they have this? We need to give big media LESS "special" protection, not more.
But we need serious litigation changes that would reform the whole of civil law.
We all have the same inalienable rights.
Posted by: Doug Parris on January 14, 2006 11:33 PMYou journalists need to get over yourselves. You are no better or worse then the rest of us and need to live by the same rules we all do.
Posted by: d meyers on January 15, 2006 08:54 AM"...or any person or entity that is in the regular business of disseminating news or information to the public by any means, including, but not limited to, print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, or electronic distribution;"
You can quibble about the meaning of "journalist" in section 6(b), but note that we are all "persons."
Note also the use of the word "or" at the end of subsection 6(b) -- meaning that the three subsections are alternatives, and that a person doesn't have to meet all three tests. Fitting into one of the subsections of the definition of "news media" is all that is required.
Not all bloggers would meet the definition of "news media," since not all could be said to be engaged in the activity that is part of that definition; but being a "journalist," however that term is defined, isn't a necessity.
Posted by: Micajah on January 15, 2006 11:32 AMWith all due apologies to Mr. Ward, thank God they're not journalists. Until very recently we've received most of our local and world news through the filter of journalists - who appear just too tight a community to tolerate much in the way of diversity of ideas or approach. This may be described as professional standards, but also as a form of orthodoxy all too susceptible to herd mentality.
Doubt it? Why, why, why have the Seattle papers failed utterly to question and seriously investigate King County's ability to count significantly more votes than voters in the 2004 election? It took a blogger to do this, and the failure of the papers to acknowledge, let alone pursue and extend, his well-documented investigation is the best demonstration at hand of such clubby orthodoxy. And a good reason to be skeptical of the output of journalists.
Mr. Ward asserts that Washington journalists don't need or want McKenna's shield law, citing powerful press associations as a better shield. Well, OK, they're in the club, and shielded already. But comparing a journalist with anonymous sources, to a blogger who provides links, doesn't reflect well on the profession - and gives another reason to be wary of the 'benefits' of shield laws for professional journalists.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on January 15, 2006 01:18 PMSad fact is, with urnalists, the same has become just as commonplace (thank you Dan Rather!)...
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 15, 2006 02:04 PMAnd you're much more likely to have the opportunity to challenge the blogger directly on such thin evidence, and call bullshit loudly and publicly if said blogger falls back on 'because me and my secret sources say so'. The blogger's reputability will then suffer instantly by loss of readership - much like the stock market punishing lousy business decisions.
I run the public affairs show at KGRG, Green River Community College's radio station on 89.9 FM. Been referring to SoundPolitics.com for anyone that is listening in the hours I broadcast.
A journalist shield law for bloggers, or for someone like myself, may be the right thing. If taken into definition what SoundPolitics.com has been providing as a blog source for everyone in this state. Certainly a powerful source for information in Washington since the 2004 election went awry.
I can say with great certainty that not every blogger or every volunteer source that BCC or those like do not deserve such shielding.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:25 PMShield laws that protect "sources" are an abomination. Journalists do not need a special right to violate the law. If "journalists" get such rights, then so should every person, period.
(Full disclosure: I have a bachelor's degree in journalism and have worked in journalism off and on for a bunch of years.)