Will journo shield law cover bloggers?
posted at 2:15 pm on March 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Winter Casey reports on the progress of a journalist shield law moving its way through Congress with bipartisan support, but notes a rather large hole in the protection. The bill prevents judges, at least on the federal level, with charging reporters for contempt when they refuse to reveal confidential sources for their reporting. But who gets covered? On-line journalists may find an unpleasant surprise when they try to invoke it:
The bill, H.R. 985, would protect reporters from being compelled to reveal confidential sources even under subpoena. It currently has 40 cosponsors, including Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind., John Conyers, D-Mich., and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. An identical bill passed the House during the 110th Congress, but the Senate never considered it.
In order to protect journalists, however, someone first has to decide who qualifies — no easy task in the fast-evolving new media marketplace. Boucher’s office noted that 36 states and the District of Columbia already have statutes protecting reporters, but the laws use varying standards and some require journalists to work for a newspaper or a radio or television station.
“We have to be very careful of enshrining in legislation today a view of technology that doesn’t take into account that technology changes,” said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard. “We are also faced with the situation today when journalism and journalism institutions are undergoing tremendous change, and the way we have defined who is a journalist” is changing as well, he added.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for example, this week stopped printing a paper edition and is available only via the Web. President Obama, in his first news conference from the White House, took a question from a reporter for the Huffington Post, an online-only source of liberal-leaning news that also routinely publishes stories written by celebrities and notable politicos. Under some laws, reporters from neither publication would qualify for protection.
In the first place, this bill looks like a solution in search of a problem. How often do reporters get locked up for contempt? Very, very rarely. The impetus for this legislation, the jailing of Judith Miller and the threatened detention of other high-profile reporters in the Plame leak investigation, came from an overzealous investigation prompted in large part by the loud indignation of the media … over leaks to reporters. It was a breathtaking display of hypocrisy then, and the demand for this bill is almost as bad.
That said, the definition of journalist in the bill focuses on the wrong approach. It takes a static view of what constitutes a journalist rather than the act itself. Not everything that appears in the daily dead-tree drop is fact-based reporting; there are plenty of opinion-based articles as well. However, the shield law protects all of that, as long as it appears in dead-tree form. It doesn’t appear to protect on-line reporting because of the format, rather than the act of reporting.
For instance, just this week I have conducted the following original reporting, based on confidential sources:
- Vivek Kundra’s theft conviction
- Freddie Mac’s executive retention bonuses
- Obama violating the law on TARP oversight
According to this law, despite doing the same exact work as a newspaper reporter, I could remain vulnerable to a contempt charge for hiding my sources while the newspaper reporter would get a pass. The same is true for our counterparts at HuffPo and the newly on-line-only Seattle PI. That tells me that the bill focuses too much on titles and format and not at all on protecting the process it claims to serve.
If Congress wants to pass a shield law to protect the journalistic process, then it needs to make sure it protects the process and not just the existing, old-school journalistic establishment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
we need to get conservative judges to be as “flexible” on partisan matters as their liberal cousins.
sven10077 on March 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Will it protect politicians?
dalec on March 20, 2009 at 2:17 PM
It doesn’t appear to protect on-line reporting because of the format, rather than the act of reporting.
Which is odd since the dead-tree format is on the endangered species list.
carbon_footprint on March 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I am about 40% certain we will be seeing the feds own newspapers before the end of the decade….
sven10077 on March 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Good going, Ed. You are becoming a recognized source of news more than just opinion. So much so that I think Rush won’t do his show prep without HA.
Christian Conservative on March 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM
FIFY
lorien1973 on March 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Will it protect teleprompters……….?
Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Yep.
carbon_footprint on March 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Which is an interesting point – the Seattle PI is now web-only, and it looks like the SF Chronicle is going in the same direction. (The Chronicle’s web site is extremely popular, while the paper itself is hemorrhaging money.)
Realist on March 20, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Is there a seperate law for,
Leftsphere journalists
vrs.
Rightsphere journalists,
and is there a Dodd type
loophole,for,say Rightsphere
journalists who blog,if you get
my drift!!
canopfor on March 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM
the day is coming where the “law” will mean whatever the committee for state security wants it to….
before the end of 2011 at current rate.
sven10077 on March 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Will it protect the Teleprompters…….?
Seven Percent Solutions on Mar 20,2009 at 2:22PM.
Seven Percent Solutions: That has to be,the single most
important question of the day!
Who will speak for,and protect
the Teleprompters of America!
Hehe,:):)
canopfor on March 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Same same
thomasaur on March 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I have no problem with confidential sources as long as the reporter agrees that if they use/site a CS then they own what they report. If the reporter does their job then owning up to what they report shouldn’t be a problem, but if the reporter hides behind the ‘well I didn’t say it’ wall then I have a problem with it (the reporter).
Limerick on March 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I will admit that my one hope for the Obama administration was that broken copyright law and updates to laws for reporting to include internet publishing would finally be made. Obama had the overwhelming support of the gurus like Ardia, Tim Wu, Lessig and others. This is not an area of law that should be owned by the left by any stretch. I would bet if Ardia is involved Wu and Lessig have to be making their opinions known as well.
msmveritas on March 20, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Fixed cause Nancy Botox Porkulus told me to.
Knucklehead on March 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29793439
“Ogabe to Lobbyists-’Hands off Stimulus’”
translation from the Ogabese-that belongs to ACORN
sven10077 on March 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
The real problem with any shield law is this: It presumes the government has the power to decide who is the press and grant privileges on that basis. It is a modern variant on the press licensure laws that helped precipitate the American revolution.
Karl on March 20, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and then misapplying the wrong remedies.
- Groucho
MB4 on March 20, 2009 at 2:40 PM
The Christian Science Monitor is also going web only — later this year IIRC.
Thread winner!
rbj on March 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Will it protect teleprompters……….?
Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
The ‘prompter union is pretty powerful, I expect that they will get special dispensations for themselves.
Bishop on March 20, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Yep.
Bill of Rights is a negative set of rights. Telling us what the government cannot do.
This presumes the opposite.
lorien1973 on March 20, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Ed: I’ll bake you and Oddball a cake with a file inside. Be sure to keep your back to the wall and if anyone says they like your shoes – give them to them.
Blake on March 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
The same is true of the “media exemption” from the federal election laws, without which the law might never have passed.
Karl on March 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Only if they are board certified members in good standing of the OAV (Order of American Ventriloquists) or if they come under the rubric of SPAT (Society for the Protection of American Teleprompters)
MB4 on March 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Crap,sorry,SPS,thats Solution,and not Solutions!Ugh!
canopfor on March 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM
If there is to be such a shield law, it should cover bloggers.
On the other hand, thee should not be a shield law in the first place — and the government ought to be more aggressive about locking up “journalists” who receive illegally leaked classified information.
RhymesWithRight on March 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM
So under this new law a print journalist can no longer be sued for libel, since all the journalist has to do is claim a confidential source?
Skandia Recluse on March 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Oh, they’ll work it out, based on recommendations from established journalists.
The panel making decisions on who is an “established journalist” among bloggers will consist of Moulitsas, Drum, and Huffington.
Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on March 20, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Why do we need a federal shield law? We’ve done fine without one so far. Do we really want to give all the NYT reporters a pass when they print information that hurts our country and our servicemen and servicewomen?
Throw the bums in jail!
Blake on March 20, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Torn over this…
I understand about whistle blowers, but part of the distrust of the media is that they constantly print Rumour as Fact, and will not divulge the source.
And especialy when talking National Security issues, a reporter should not be able to use what is essentialy illegal information, and then protect his/her source.
Freedom of the Press is a part of Freedom of Speech, but even Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence OF that Speech.
With this bill, a reporter can make up an allegation, source it to an unamed source, with no proof, and the slander will stand because there is no way to FORCE the name of the source out of the reporter.
IMO this is one of the reasons Newspapers and Jounalism is dieing…. the people no longer trust it because it is not verifiable… and with the net, we have access to information TO verify.
Romeo13 on March 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Not to mention, all I have to do is press a button and boom, Ed’s insights are now on deadtree format.
Rogue on March 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Ah, the looooooppphole…
Print ONE copy of HotAir every day… and stick up on a public wall somewhere… or buy an old newpaper machine…
Thus, you are now publishing a Newspaper! Hotair is just your editing and feedback device… kinda like letters to the editor …
Romeo13 on March 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM
The year is 2101!
Its a world gone mad,it’ll take a lone rightsphere blogger
to make it right,once again,in an action packed movie,
brought to you by,BendOver BackWards News(BBN),the flick
that will inspire,and send chills up and down your politic
al spines,
*5 Stars,a hell of a thrill ride,
-NYT.
Teleprompter Approved,a full Screen,and Two Thumbs Up,
-The Teleprompter Giuld.
Inspirational,a roller coaster ride of the net,you’ll
never forget! -USA Today! (Snark)ahem!
canopfor on March 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Makes as much sense as anything else this Congress is doing…
Wonder if we can get a law shielding people from faux-outraged politicians *coughBawneyFwankcough* or thier koolaid drinking minions *coughJoeThePlumbercough*…
Rogue on March 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM
not a chance of passage…
NRA Lifer on March 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM
What is the government going to do when I do not stop blogging and never reveal any of my sources?
Kill me?
This is not Russia. Or Iran. Yet.
SCOOPTHIScarlos on March 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Rush referenced Ed twice this week on the radio for his original reporting, which makes me think…maybe bloggers should ban together and lobby for equal protection as they’re sourced more and more by alternate media outlets for their investigative work.
RepubChica on March 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I have an idea. Why not get the boss to create a newsletter, then you can get your family and close friends to buy. Print it on dead wood. Send it through the mail.
Couldn’t you then call yourself a newspaper?
MarkTheGreat on March 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM
You only shortened the timeline by 9 months.
MarkTheGreat on March 20, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Add an ammendment to the bill, for the purposes of slander, if the reporter refuses to name the source, then the source shall be legally presumed to not exist.
MarkTheGreat on March 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
May as well, they already control them.
Johan Klaus on March 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM
What is the public policy justification for a shield law? I just do not get it. We have someone who wants to publicize a fact. Why on God’s green Earth should that be a protected activity regardless of the fact sought to be publicized?
With the attorney-client privilege, we want clients to access legal representation and to be truthful with their lawyers. Everyone is entitled to such representation. It is a bedrock Constitutional principle. To serve this important public policy, we protect what one says to their lawyer. That protection comes at a cost, as the lawyer almost always becomes aware of facts that could change the outcome of a trial or other judicial dispute. Justice is impaired by all privileges. However, our society makes a determination that the privilege serves a higher principle than the justice impaired thereby. We as a society will permit (in fact require) a lawyer to keep confidences to the detriment of justice in order to preserve an individual’s access to representation. Lawyers are licensed by the state and follow an extensive code of ethics.
Compare that to the disgruntled Apple employee that steals trade secrets and discloses it to a Mac Rumor site — why should that disclosure be protected? Or a CIA official disclosing state secrets, if it is a crime, why should their conversation with a reporter be protected? There is no higher public purpose served by such a privilege. Even hiding the identity of an important whistleblower should not be protected. If he is blowing the whistle on some illegal activity, the authorities need to investigate it and need to talk to the guy who blew the whistle. There is never a justification for protecting conversations with a reporter. What is next, the public relations advisor privilege?
None of this is to say that a reporter cannot protect his sources. He can, if he deems it important to his “journalistic ethics,” but he needs to be prepared to suffer the consequences when his sense of ethics comes in conflict with the judicial process and the need to do justice.
tommylotto on March 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I am against a federal shield law…
+1
d1carter on March 20, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I’m disappointed that any American conservative would support this so-called shield law in any form. No person, not even you Ed, should be able to hide anonymous slander or libel or, as with the NY Times, treason behind the printed or spoken word.
But what makes it especially egregious is that only those deemed to be journalists should be granted this privilege and further that “journalist” will defined in a way convenient to our corrupt legisocracy.
Isn’t there even one conservative of note who can see that the rule of law and justice is hanging by a thread?
edshepp on March 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM
The story here is NOT that bloggers wouldn’t be covered by the law, the story is that the law is unconstitutional to begin with and should be struck down immediately.
Congress may set the jurisdiction of courts, it may not usurp their constitutional powers. And compelling testimony from everyone but the accused and their spouse is a constitutionally mandated judicial power.
American Elephant on March 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
It will likely lean less toward serving the process and more toward ‘process serving.’
whitetop on March 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Ed, Ed, Ed… whither your famed cynicism? The whole idea is to put pesky bloggers at the tender mercies of your betters — the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. If you’re a “real” journalist, they’ll cut you some slack. You, Allah, the boss, and the rest of the conservative pajama-clad rabble? Not so much.
Exactly my point. Did you pay proper obeisance to Congress and The One? No, you did not. You committed the sin of original reporting that embarrassed them rather than exalted them.
“Too cynical,” you say? Isn’t this the same Congress that included the probably-unconstitutional “Sanford Amendment” in the stimulus? The same gang that has, in recent days, debated whether to pass an ex post facto bill that incorporates the first bill of attainder seen in decades?
Pshaw. I channel that great philosopher Lily Tomlin: No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.
Paul_in_NJ on March 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM
No shield! They should be made to stand on their words – which, to them, are their actions.
OldEnglish on March 20, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Ed,
The quote regarding publications not covered refers to existing state laws, which, naturally vary. The Fed bill has in its’ definitions section: (2) COVERED PERSON- 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,which, presumably, would cover bloggers.
The larger point is that privileges like these (e.g.given to doctors and attorneys) always come with concomitant duties, which is why those two professions can be sued for malpractice. If journalists want the privileges, they should also adopt the duties—I’m guessing the MSM would be loathe to allow themselves to be held responsbile for their stories, they want the reward without the responsibility…sounds like another group I know.
LexisTexas2 on March 20, 2009 at 6:59 PM
So the Christian Science Monitor’s reporters and the other news organizations changing to online-only services won’t be protected?
HotWeaver on March 20, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Comment pages: