Government SHOULD NOT Define What a Reporter IS--OR ISN'T

[Segami]

Sen. Diane Feinstein and a horde of members of Congress of both parties want to decide who is and who isn't a reporter. Sen. Feinstein says a "real" reporter is a "salaried agent of a media company." She mentions the usual suspects--New York Times, ABC News. She dismisses part-time staff. She dismisses freelancers. She dismisses those who write, often without pay, for the hundreds of alternative publications, and often break news and investigative stories well ahead of the mainstream media. She dismisses anyone who, she says, "have no professional qualifications." The reason she wants to define what a reporter is or isn't is because there's a proposed federal Media Shield Law that would protect reporters from revealing their sources. Forty states and the District of Columbia currently have shield laws. Sen. Feinstein wants to amend the federal bill to take away existing First Amendment protections from anyone not involved in--apparently--salaried establishment media.




There are people who have minimal qualifications to be a reporter. Many write nothing but screeds. Many have problems with basic language skills. Many have little familiarity with the AP Style Book. Many have an inability to ask probing questions of government officials; many merely transcribe what they're told, whether from the president, a council member, or a local reader who is the focus of a feature. Some of them are paid salaries and are agents of media companies, which Sen. Feinstein believes are acceptable requirements. There are also those who frequently allow "deep background" and "off-the-record" comments. Many news media won't allow sources to go "off-the-record." If the information isn't available to the general public, it shouldn't be available only to reporters. Access to news sources is something reporters enjoy that the average reader doesn't; but there is a responsibility to the reader and viewer and listener not to hide information. There are those who overuse the "veiled news source," which is a part of the Shield Law. A veiled news source could be someone whom the reporter identifies as, "Sources close to the Governor state . . ." Often, the reporter doesn't question a source's motives for why she or he wants to give anonymous information, or if it is merely a "trial balloon" to use the media to put out information; if the people agree, sources become identified; if the public disagrees with a proposal, no one traces the "leak" to politicians or their staffs.




On more than a few occasions, reporters--whether "salaried agents" of a media company, part-timers for that company or for any of thousands of alternative publications or electronic media, or freelancers--have filled in holes in their stories with false identities--"A 55-year-old housewife in Podunka, who asked not to be identified, says . . . " Good reporters seldom use a veiled news source and then have to protect them should there be a court order to divulge the source of information. On rare occasions, however, a reporter, in consultation with an editor, will allow a news source to be anonymous. Granting veiled news source status should not be given unless a source's information and identity puts her or him into significant personal jeopardy--and the information can be verified. But, even if there are reporters who are lazy, who plagiarize, who abuse the veiled news source privilege, there are no enforceable ethics rules in journalism. Reporters aren't licensed--such as physicians, social workers, teachers, contractors, and cosmetologists. Only an editor can discipline or terminate an employee.




Nevertheless, whenever the government says it wants to define what a reporter is or is not--and the public, outraged over something a reporter or news operation did or did not do demands licensing and enforceable codes of ethics--a huge red flag should be in everyone's face. Not one part of the First Amendment determines who or what a reporter is, or what is or is not news. The Founding Fathers didn't forget to include that; they deliberately didn't want to include that. They believed government shouldn't be making those decisions, and the news media, even the media that base their news upon lies and scandal, must be independent. And, yet, government and the news media often wink at the intent of the Founding Fathers and cozy up together. The only thing more outrageous than reporters and sources playing golf or tennis together is reporters schmoozing at political receptions, the women dressed like they were movie celebrities on the Red Carpet, the men in tuxedos. And the reason why they go to these receptions? They claim it's because they "get their information" there. But, "socializing" isn't the only thing that violates the intent of the Founding Fathers. It probably isn't a good practice for Congress to appoint news correspondents to determine who is or is not qualified to receive press credentials--subject to the oversight of House and Senate leaders. Until recently, the establishment press of "salaried agents" refused even to acknowledge that members of the alternative press, even those who have won awards for investigative reporting, should be allowed the privileges that mainstream reporters are allowed. It violates the First Amendment when police agencies and governments at all levels decide who can or can't cover its activities. Usually, the ones excluded are reporters who are not "agents" of an establishment media company.



cont'




http://www.opednews.com/articles/Government-Should-Not-Defi-by-Walter-Brasch-130820-93.html

[LiberalEsto]

1. K&R! nt

[nil desperandum]

2. The march continues

to redefine each amendment to the Bill of Rights to suit whatever power broker was recently offended by someone using those Rights as they should be used to keep the government in check.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. How can anybody read things like this

and not see that the Adults in the Room are doing everything they can to shut down whistleblowers and critics of the Establishment?

And that Establishment is a single coin with two sides. When the "D" side is up, peripheral policies are enacted so that things get a little better for gays, women & little kids, and when the "R" side is up, the peripheral policies tend to favor the fundamentalist authoritarian part of the Booboisie, but no matter which side is up, the core agenda moves along.

Social Security is at risk. The corporations tighten their grip. High-tech surveillance sends its tentacles around the globe like a metastasizing cancer, ultimately invading the brain of every human being on the planet. The playing field continues to tip. Money finds ways to accumulate more money, at the expense of all humane values.

Nobody except a few "fringe leftists" (who are carefully kept far from the levers of power) dares challenge the oil companies, the military machine, or the industries that support them. Keystone rumbles ahead with the blessing of the State Department despite the clear warnings from a few honest souls in the Department of Interior.

People like DiFi and Eric Cantor are, first and foremost, oligarchs, and only secondarily Republicans or Democrats; their party branding has about as much significance as the "flags of convenience" flown by the superships that bring Walmart's plastic trash from China.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. Hmm...when "they" begin interpreting a thing, that thing appears to be in great danger.

Such as the Constitution and our freedoms.

[sabrina 1]

5. How about the people decide who is a REAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE and who isn't??

It is perfectly clear what this is all about. Silence the people!!

They are getting more brazen and it is useless to contact them about anything, they have made it crystal clear that they do not care what the people think and simply ignore them.

We have created a royal class.

I was never in favor of placing a limit on how long they can serve in Congress, but I'm wondering if allowing them to remain there for so long isn't part of the problem.

[Segami]

6. SHHH,....

SHHH,......FEINSTEIN WILL TELL YOU WHO IS A REPORTER AND WHO ISN'T!!

[sabrina 1]

7. I wonder how long before they start sending warnings to people online about 'watching what

they say'.

Nothing would surprise me in this country anymore. She is emboldened by the support she is getting from some on the Left.

I'm sure we will hear from those who support all of this, WHY it is necessary before too long.

[Segami]

9. Can't wait to see when they'll roll out their 'new & improved' Advisory System Color Chart

Courtesy of HLS.

[Ikonoklast]

8. Newsmax has 'reporters'. Breitbart has 'reporters'.

Remember, it has to be all, or none are reporters.

[sabrina 1]

11. Is there some reason you are pointing this out? Did you think we should be selective

I support the right of Newsmax and Breitbart and Fox to protection under the 1st Amendment, surely you are not suggesting we should not?

"our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." Thomas Jefferson

And he said that despite the existence during those times of their own version of Fox and Breitbart et al as he talks about here:

"nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."

Still, he pointed out, better to allow that pollution than to limit freedom of press any day, because when there are limits on speech, that is a far worse threat to a democracy.

[Segami]

12. Far, far, far worse threat indeed!!

[woo me with science]

10. I imagine showing these headlines

to a relative who died 20 years ago.

It's fucking surreal.

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. And so, she just told us who she personally is afraid of.

And who she is not afraid of.

I can't wait for one of those freelancers to get the "outta here" story on Dirty Di. It's gross that she is even in our Senate. She needed to go a long time ago.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. She's not just a dino, she's a full fledged dinosaur.

The media's refusal to print hard news has opened up the internet to fill the void.

She makes me sick.

[Half-Century Man]

15. There are conditions to be met in order to be a reporter

They are "do you have some method of communication?"

[sabrina 1]

17. They successfully took over the MSM owned now by six Corporations and for news we

get Kathie Lee baking cookies in the morning, holding her little dog while our 'News Anchors' stand by and try to look interested.

We have a list of 'acceptable' 'experts' on every subject, they have been vetted carefully and will never rock the boat. Jeffrey Toobin for 'legal' issues. Sanje Gupta for 'Big Pharm issues'. always the same small group.

But then came the Internet and they realized that people were shutting down their propaganda machine and looking elsewhere for news.

They 'couldn't control the message anymore' as Hillary told Congress when asking for funds to 'communications'.

And they still can't. So now someone came up with this clever catchall for people who report real news. Define who is a journalist and who isn't.

What could possibly go wrong? Government defining who gets to report the news.

Even the most cynical of us never thought they would go this far.

[Blue_Tires]

16. Decent points, but that last paragraph is all over the place

If he has a problem with something like the white house correspondents dinner, then he at least needs to call out every industry that has some equivalent (i.e., pro sports, fashion, business, hollywood, etc...)

I also don't get his gripe over press credentials, which are almost always given on the basis of readership size, and then first-come, based on space available...It doesn't matter how good some blogger or writer for alt media is; if they only have a handful of dedicated readers then they aren't getting in most of the time....

[FreeJoe]

18. I'm not sure this is so black and white

I definitely agree that the first amendment should apply equally to everyone. No one should have any more or less of a guarantee to free speech based on whether the state sees them as a "journalist" or not. On the other hand, we have to address the issue of journalistic shield laws. We have three options:

1) Allow everyone to refuse to testify in court.
2) Allow no one the ability to refuse to testify in court.
3) Allow for limited exclusions based on people's roles.

We recognize that we cannot have a strong system of legal representation without attorney-client privilege. I think there are other privileged groups (psychiatrists, receivers of religious confessions). There are substantial benefits to allowing journalists the right to refuse to testify about their sources. To do that, you have to have some means to establish whether some is or is acting as a journalist.

[cascadiance]

19. She was ranting about her assault weapons ban the very same days she fought fillibuster reform...

She was one of the holdouts that prevented Merkley's talking filibuster rule change to happen at the beginning of the legislative session. Had she fought for it and had it put in place, her Assault Weapon's bill in the senate might have had a chance to pass in the Senate then. So... DiFi, were you REALLY interested in reforming the laws on assault weapons or did you just want to LOOK LIKE you were TRYING to do that and actually didn't give a rat's ass about whether it passed or not. You just wanted to play this game so that you could find ways to rationalize why you should stay in power and later do this kind of crap now that tries to redefine constitutional protections for a free press!

I voted or Medea Benjamin in the primary against you for Senate way back at the end of the last century, and haven't voted for you since (though not voting for any Republicans either). It's really too bad that you didn't run in the recall election of Gray Davis. Would have done far less damage if you were thrown in as governor of California than staying in the Senate.

[Segami]

20. Dianne Feinstein’s “espionage”..

"....Nobody embodies this species of blatant corruption more purely than the senior Democratic Senator from California and Intelligence Committee Chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, who also serves as the National Security State’s most faithful servant (a National Security State which, just by the way, has greatly enriched her extremely rich military contractor husband, Richard Blum; Feinstein herself reported a net worth of $80 million back in 2006). The Senate Committee which Feinstein chairs was created in the wake of the intelligence abuses discovered by the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, and was intended to “provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” As Chair of the Committee, Feinstein evinces no interest whatsoever in doing any of that. She does the opposite: she unyieldingly devotes herself to fortifying the wall of secrecy behind which the intelligence community operates, protecting whatever they do from accountability, and punishing anyone who impedes it..."

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/24/dianne_feinsteins_espionage/

[cascadiance]

21. DiFi and Jane Harman were a pair of do-no-goods when it came to intelligence operations!

DiFi was PO'd for Obama passing over Harman with his pick of Panetta to head up the CIA.

http://sweeps.thirdingredient.com/wow/wowowow/post-sen-feinstein-hits-back-against-obamas-cia-pick-rep-jane-harman-passed-over-job-167674

And of course DiFi and Harman both worked together to try and centralize the intelligence offices to be under one cabinet position too... Perhaps wanting to tighten the reigns of secrecy that the NSA and other intelligence agencies have had for so long...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=20040725&id=g41HAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Tn8MAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,6313427

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/18/local/me-difi18

And of course we know how Jane Harman had HELPED the Bush administration avoid scrutiny in the 2004 election by working to have the New York Times delay a story on what the Bush administration was doing with warrantless wiretapping!

http://www.alternet.org/story/137698/confirmed%3A_rep._jane_harman_tried_to_kill_nsa_wiretapping_story_--_may_have_swayed_2004_election

Legislators like DiFi and Jane Harman are part of the problems surrounding the secrecy establishment's crimes, NOT the solution!

[Segami]

22. Ugh....Jane Harman!

Flashback April 21 2009



Rep. Jane Harman Changes Her Tune On Wiretapping


Reports in Congressional Quarterly and the New York Times indicate that a National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap authorized by the FISA Court recorded Rep. Jane Harman trading political favors with a suspected Israeli agent. When the FBI attempted to open a criminal investigation into the matter, Attorney General Gonzales allegedly intervened because he "'needed Jane' to help support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program."


Here was EFF's initial reaction to the scandal, as reported by ABC News:

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been fighting legal battles against the Bush administration and now the Obama administration related to NSA wiretapping, called the story "a textbook case of political abuse of surveillance powers, but in reverse."

Instead of the Bush administration spying on its enemies for political ends, "this is an instance of them directing surveillance away from their allies for political ends," observed EFF's Kevin Bankston.

"What other insider deals it may have struck to gather support for its policies? What other political allies has it protected against criminal or intelligence investigations for political reasons?" he asked. "This raises serious questions about how the Bush administration conducted itself."

Now, in the wake of the scandal, Rep. Harman has pulled an abrupt about-face in her position on NSA wiretapping. Speaking to MSNBC this morning she said:

I'm just very disappointed that my country — I'm an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. I'm one member of Congress who may be caught up in it, but I have a bully pulpit, and I can fight back. I'm thinking about others who have no bully pulpit, and may not be aware — as I was not — that right now, somewhere, someone's listening in on their conversations, and they're innocent Americans.

This is a real change of tune for Rep. Harman. Over the past few years, she has been one of the warrantless wiretapping program's most relentless cheerleaders. Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald aptly summarized her efforts:

Indeed, as I've noted many times, Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as "the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee" to repeatedly praise the NSA program as "essential to U.S. national security" and "both necessary and legal." She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she "deplored the leak," that "it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers," and that the whistleblowers were "despicable." And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/harman-changes-tune

[cascadiance]

23. And of course Glen Greenwald had the goods on Harman in her AIPAC scandal mess as well...

The things that woman did in her career as congresswoman... How Democrats could ever continue to vote for her. I guess she was pretty rich enough with her husband's turntable business to keep her campaigns well funded!

Funny to see how SHE reacts to being wiretapped when she arguably was up to no good and deserved it at the time.

http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/