Reporters Committee to Protect Freedom of the Press to Bloggers: Drop Dead

The head of the Hacks' Special Pleading Club, chatting in the Washington Post's chatroom:

New York, N.Y.: This case raises many larger questions about journalistic shield laws. In an age of "blogs" and online reporting, should these laws extend to that type of publication? Who, precisely, is a "journalist"?

Lucy Dalglish [Fathead Director, RCPFP]: To quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I know a journalist when I see one."

Sorry for the flippant remark, but it's not that tough. I think there are many journalists who publish their work on the Internet, and they would be protected by the shield law that has been introduced in Congress.

There are several federl court cases out their (most notably the "Von Bulow" case) that, in general, journalists are people who collect news and information, do something to it editorially, and publish it to an audience. When deciding whether an Internet-based reporter is covered by the proposed shield law, a court will look to the frequency with which the person has been published. The current language talks about "periodicals" whether they are published in print or electronically. At the Reporters Committee, we frequently assist Internet-based journalists. (All typos in original)

As both regular readers of this site know, I enjoy bashing the "bloggers rule, Old Media sucks" assclownery of folks like F.M. "Jeff" Jarvis. Equally loathsome, however, is the idea that a privilege should be extended or withheld based on such standards as frequency of publication, whether one "does something to it editorially," or whether Lucy Dogleash "sees it."

Dogleash dodges, Scotty McLellan-style, the issue of whether bloggers would be entitled to the same protection as journalists under her fantasy law. But she makes a distinction between "journalists" and the unworthy sods who aren't entitled to her privilege. She also refers to "the frequency with which the person has been published," suggesting that self-publishers don't pass her cut. And she certainly doesn't say that bloggers are equally deserving of protection, which would be simple to type if that was her position.

Journalists, bloggers and the rest of this country's inhabitants should be in the same boat - either they are subject to subpoenas compelling their testimony under oath, or they aren't. After all, the Bill of Rights doesn't make any distinctions based on the identity of the speaker.