General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnd... With A H/T To DUer bullwinkle428... I Direct You To Charles Pierce... On DiFi's Shield Law..
DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3702622
RC
(25,592 posts)Why? Because, one, I publish a monthly three page newsletter for a prestigious organization. Why is it prestigious? Because, not only do I belong to it, this organization has been around for over 60 years and even has a scholarship fund. And two, I have my own political web site, where I can say whatever I want, about whomever I want. I can get away with that because I have an attachment for facts and truth. Unlike some around here, who have tendency to spin everything, including what a journalist is, or is not.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"Hey, Dianne, here's the thing on that First Amendment business. I get to define what you do for a living. And if I decide to define what you do for a living is to be a mewling apologist for the national-security community and a lapdog for the surveillance state, I get to do that, and I get to do it in a newspaper, or video, or on-line, or on a pamphlet stapled to a telephone pole outside your door, if I so choose. You get to sit there, collect your government salary, raise money from plutocrats, and shut...the...hell...up.
I understand that we are going through an accelerated redefinition of what journalism is, and that technology has made the old definition of a journalist obsolete. But there is nothing about the technology -- or about the effects that technology has had on the profession -- that requires us to abandon the fundamental requirement that journalism always -- and let us speak slowly, lest the gobshites misundertand us, a-l-w-a-y-s, is a profession outside of, and adversarial to, government, politics, and, yes, indeed, even the doings of the all-to-human, error-prone heroes of our intelligence apparatus. Nothing about the internet changes that.
There are far too many people right now in Washington who are far too comfortable in being a de facto part of the country's power structure. Their profession is not mine. Let me be quite clear. If you accept the Congress's right to define what a journalist is, you are a miserable traitor to the profession you presume to practice. You have, quite simply, become something less worthy than an informer, something lower than a jailhouse snitch."
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dianne-feinstein-sheild-laws-091913
THANK YOU, CHARLES PIERCE, and thank you, bullwinkle428 and WillyT!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I can't even freaking believe someone is trying to regulate who is and who is not a journalist. It's insanity.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)It deserves to be in the OP.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)NOW.....
(just kidding)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,723 posts)Thanks for the thread, WillyT.