Was Jeff Gannon a journalist?

[TheKentuckian]

112. Yes..a pukey yes but a yes.

Why are we getting bogged down on this, when one would only be shielded in areas directly related to their reporting anyway (whatever form that takes)? What is logically all the hubbub? This could only be to allow a precedent to define who is the press and who isn't rather than protections for journalists. The idea is clearly to make sure some folks are cut off from the herd rather than protecting anybody at all.

The shield law is needed, the definitions are not and cannot be constitutional. It is restriction by control of definition of not what but WHO and there is the hitch.
Want a "meaningful debate" then come back with a criteria based on what is being done rather than who is doing it and we can have that talk but there is nothing meaningful to debate when asserting such power as good ole DiFi has here and the committee by extension.

The fact that the criteria is not about what happens but who is doing means automatic chicanery.

There are many more bloggers that give more insightful and informative reporting than the likes of Wolf Blitzer or Chuck Todd, the argument reduces to absurdity instantly as soon as many or even most of who would most definitely be protected are filtered through the simple lens of do they inform, provide factual context, fact find, or ferret out truth that the powerful wish to keep hidden?

Corporate propaganda, distraction, and partisan pundantry are shielded. Anyone else can tell their story to a judge and see what happens.

I understand the "Holy shit! We have to get some kind of protections in place for journalists!" idea but I don't accept any cure need to be this inherently dangerous in an era of media consolidation and dereliction of duty. Little in the way of real news comes from the protected class here, not to say they shouldn't also be protected but they are of secondary concern at this point until some little folk have done the work in a lot of cases.