Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Was Jeff Gannon a journalist? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)126. Well,
"I think I have a far better argument than you do and like I said, if you want to ride this horse over a cliff, I won't stand in the way of you getting a saddle."
...of course you do. I'm sure those arguing to kill the bill believe thay have a "far better argument" that these groups.
Reporters Committee statement on shield bill
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.
Our statement: We are pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee passed this bill. It goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. It's not a perfect bill, but it tries to cover a broad array of reporters. While it is not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been. It still is important that we work with Congress and the administration to make sure journalists' records are not scooped up in broad surveillance programs, and that Justice Department attorneys respect the rights of reporters, but today's action is a significant step in the right direction.
<...>
http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.
Our statement: We are pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee passed this bill. It goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. It's not a perfect bill, but it tries to cover a broad array of reporters. While it is not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been. It still is important that we work with Congress and the administration to make sure journalists' records are not scooped up in broad surveillance programs, and that Justice Department attorneys respect the rights of reporters, but today's action is a significant step in the right direction.
<...>
http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill
Senate Finally Frees the Press (Kind Of)
By Gabe Rottman
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday took up a federal reporter shield law for the second time this year, after getting caught up back in July over the definition of a journalist. This time around, however, the committee passed it, marking the first time a shield bill has moved since 2009, when momentum behind a very similar measure died an unfortunate death after the Wikileaks affair. Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency.
The recent revelations that the Justice Department has aggressively investigated members of the news media in several high-profile leaks inquiries have breathed new life into the measure, which would add federal protections on top of the 49 states that already "shield" reporters from having to disclose their sources and work product.
<...>
The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.
<...>
But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."
- more -
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind
By Gabe Rottman
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday took up a federal reporter shield law for the second time this year, after getting caught up back in July over the definition of a journalist. This time around, however, the committee passed it, marking the first time a shield bill has moved since 2009, when momentum behind a very similar measure died an unfortunate death after the Wikileaks affair. Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency.
The recent revelations that the Justice Department has aggressively investigated members of the news media in several high-profile leaks inquiries have breathed new life into the measure, which would add federal protections on top of the 49 states that already "shield" reporters from having to disclose their sources and work product.
<...>
The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.
<...>
But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."
- more -
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind
From the President: Contact your senators now!
Its time to raise the shield. Now! Congress is considering the Free Flow of Information Act a federal shield law. We need to let our U.S. senators know how important this legislation is for society. You can help! Email or call your two senators (info below), and then let us know that you did. We will update the shield map and continue to spread the word. Act now!
- more -
http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp
Its time to raise the shield. Now! Congress is considering the Free Flow of Information Act a federal shield law. We need to let our U.S. senators know how important this legislation is for society. You can help! Email or call your two senators (info below), and then let us know that you did. We will update the shield map and continue to spread the word. Act now!
- more -
http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp
Updated to add:
By David Greene
Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But Its Still Imperfect
The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a new version of the proposed media shield law, forging a compromise on who should be protected from having to reveal their journalistic sources in court. The amended bill, which is now clear to go for a full vote in the Senate, avoids defining who is a journalist. Moreover, it would allow judges the discretion to apply the protection to any person who, in the interest of justice, should be considered a practicing journalist.
The bill is far from perfect, but the new compromise opens the door to non-mainstream journalists, as well as new forms of journalism that may develop in the future.
The Long and Winding Road to a Federal Reporters Privilege Statute
The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987) would create protection for newsgatherers who are served with subpoenas or other court orders seeking unpublished information obtained during the course of their newsgathering.
Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a reporters privilege, interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.
There is no question that a federal shield law is needed. However, as with all shield laws, the law must define which persons can claim its protections.
- more -
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But Its Still Imperfect
The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a new version of the proposed media shield law, forging a compromise on who should be protected from having to reveal their journalistic sources in court. The amended bill, which is now clear to go for a full vote in the Senate, avoids defining who is a journalist. Moreover, it would allow judges the discretion to apply the protection to any person who, in the interest of justice, should be considered a practicing journalist.
The bill is far from perfect, but the new compromise opens the door to non-mainstream journalists, as well as new forms of journalism that may develop in the future.
The Long and Winding Road to a Federal Reporters Privilege Statute
The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987) would create protection for newsgatherers who are served with subpoenas or other court orders seeking unpublished information obtained during the course of their newsgathering.
Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a reporters privilege, interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.
There is no question that a federal shield law is needed. However, as with all shield laws, the law must define which persons can claim its protections.
- more -
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
Fact: No protection means no protection for anyone, and we all have free speech protection with or without the shield law.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
148 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I sense this is a loaded question, and you're going to ask the No voters "well then, what about..."
Electric Monk
Sep 2013
#4
He was a tool, but he most assuredly had White House press credentials.
DisgustipatedinCA
Sep 2013
#9
tou·ché - . (in fencing) used as an acknowledgment of a hit by one's opponent.
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#12
Well, obviously he can't be a journalist if we don't approve of him politically. DUH!
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2013
#19
A press pass is not a device for consitutional blessing. It's for WH security.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2013
#31
What would the sheild law do to change Gannon's status, declared by the WH as it was?
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#20
No less so than Chuck Todd but then again Todd gets paid so I guess that makes all the difference?
Uncle Joe
Sep 2013
#40
Exactly. That is why allowing government to define journalist is bullshit.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2013
#23
Yep, I was right. Nailed it with post #4, above. Probably thought you were so cute, didn't you? nt
Electric Monk
Sep 2013
#51
My first and primary question was 'what's this got to do with the sheild law' and you did your
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#128
No. The fact that he was paid to portray one doesn't make him any more of a journalist
Tanuki
Sep 2013
#21
He was a sleepover@White House shaved hardbody GOP blogger with terrible taste in men
leveymg
Sep 2013
#27
You should take a shower and get a blood test if you got close enough to know that about Jimmy Jeff
leveymg
Sep 2013
#39
At times he appeared to be a propagandist, but he worked in the field of journalism
Agnosticsherbet
Sep 2013
#33
We should keep the name and the story alive. Jeff Gannon - GOP's favorite male prostitute.
JEFF9K
Sep 2013
#41
I think Spandan is a shitty blogger who should be rejected by all sane people
Bjorn Against
Sep 2013
#52
I know what it is. Are you saying that a person pushing propaganda is a journalist? n/t
ProSense
Sep 2013
#70
Actually, I'd say that both you and Gannon would be more accurately described as propagandists
Electric Monk
Sep 2013
#71
If they're analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest, yes.
NuclearDem
Sep 2013
#59
That would be shitty tabloid journalism, but SCOTUS has repeatedly defended even that
NuclearDem
Sep 2013
#65
He covered the White House, got press credentials, was published, and had a readership.
WilliamPitt
Sep 2013
#50
When he wasn't pimping himself out for sexual service he wrote for a right wing rag
notadmblnd
Sep 2013
#56
"you can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press."
Chan790
Sep 2013
#120
Is John Stewart? Stephen Colbert? Glen Greenwald? Matt Taibbi? Greg Palast?
SomethingFishy
Sep 2013
#98
when CNN was propagandizing to push the invasion of Iraq or the impeachment of Clinton, were they
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#100
I find the tendency toward authoritarianism by the majority of poll respondents here very disturbing
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#103
for all practical purposes it does - it define who is protected under shield laws and who is not
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#110
How did the 1st Amendment ever survive 224 years without defining journalist (or press)?
Faryn Balyncd
Sep 2013
#108
What's the point here? JG could have been a journo AND a male prostitute for a WH resident.
WinkyDink
Sep 2013
#148