Mossback explains the provisions in the "reporter shield bill" that were designed to apply solely to legacy media institutions, but not to cover most bloggers or other alternative media. Rowland Thompson, the newspaper trade association executive who lobbied for the bill, offers advice to bloggers who would like qualify for protection under the bill:
Thompson says that he would recommend independent bloggers and journalists legally incorporate, not only to gain the status of a shielded entity but to protect personal assets from potential libel lawsuits. Forming a limited partnership is another path to "entity" status. Or, he says, maybe just getting a business license would be enough to qualify. Or running a Web site that sells advertising or subscriptions.I have mixed feelings about a reporter shield bill in the first place, and I don't like the bill's restrictive definition of protected news media. But it sounds like Sound Politics is protected under the bill. May the flow of confidential tips to our writers continue. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 24, 2007 09:27 PM | Email This
Do we need to improve upon that?
No...not really...
Posted by: John Bailo on April 24, 2007 11:03 PMivan, a few days ago one of your fellow lefties, Bruce, asked if those who read SP really think the other side is sincere and serious. Several responded. I thought of you when I responded and the answer was yes, BTW.
How would you respond regarding the other side?
Posted by: swatter on April 25, 2007 07:23 AMAbout time on the ivan front. Can't wait for the DM and Facts deles.
Posted by: swatter on April 25, 2007 08:03 AMMy personal favorite is that without a shield law, reporters are not free to cover important stories. What makes this argument great is that they often point to Watergate as a prime example. Except, of course, that there was, in fact, no shield law protecting Woodward and Bernstein.
Similarly, reporters claim a "chilling effect" without a shield law. Follow that logic: giving reporters something they have never had before creates a "chilling effect." On what planet?
Then there's the Constitutional arguments about free press which amount to nothing, as quite clearly there is no Constitutional right to protect the identity of your sources when there's a state interest in knowing who they are. (Further, if there IS a Constitutional right, it cannot possibly be restricted to whomever the government blesses.)
Worst of all, though, is that a shield law -- ESPECIALLY one that, like this one, picks and chooses who is a "journalist" -- necessarily makes reporters beholden to the government, which is a position a journalist should never put himself in. The journalist now relies on the government for his livlihood, when he should be independent of the government.
Which brings us to the main point: the only real reason for a shield law -- which is why the media and government support it, and you almost never hear anyone in the media or government speaking out against it -- is to allow government officials and the media to collude to protect themselves from the truth.
It gives them cover. A journalist is allowed to be sloppy or wrong, a government official is allowed to lie, and usually, no one ever finds out.
I am disappointed in AG McKenna for supporting the shield law.
If enacted, this law should be immediately appealed to the courts, and the authors of the bill voted out of office, tarred, feathered, made to read the bill of rights 100 times, tattooed with an image of Peter Zenger, and deported to their tyrrany of choice (Cuba, N. Korea, Myanmar, Iran).
Posted by: Steve on April 25, 2007 01:09 PMBy journalists? I don't mind that a journalist promises it, as long as it is with the caveat that he does not have the RIGHT to keep that promise under some circumstances.
From my perspective, if a promise of confidentiality is what it takes to get a government employee to talk to a reporter about corruption or other wrongdoing by government officials and thereby enable us to stop it, and if a shield law enables such promises of confidentiality to be actually kept, then it is a good thing.
You're looking at it the wrong way: it is the government who should offer such protection for people who talk to the press to expose actual wrongdoing. The journalist cannot protect the identity, but the whistleblower himself can be statutorily immune.
Yes, it might be subject to abuse -- but it can be an important tool in uncovering much worse corruption and abuse.
Do you have an example? Again, many people point to Watergate on this too, but as we now know, Deep Throat had political ambitions. If he really wanted to serve the common good, he would have come forward publically and brought the evidence with him; instead, he was sneaky and just leaked a little bit of evidence, enough to make the President look bad while protecting his own position.
That is the sort of thing I think readers should know at the time, and not wait 30 years to find out.
http://slashdot.org/~pudge/journal/121608
(I address whistleblowers in there, too.)
Something about radioactive waste being tossed in the sewers or something like that.
Posted by: swatter on April 25, 2007 02:17 PM