I remember hearing a saying that “freedom of the press belongs to those who are rich enough to own one.” That quote always comes to mind when I hear discussion of a Journalist Shield law or Reporter’s Privilege law.
Of course, now things are a lot murkier than they once were. A lot of citizens are in the reporting business and a lot of reporters are in the entertainment business. So, I’m not sure Indiana’s Journalist Privilege law (linked above) makes much sense in terms of its scope. It applies to:
(1) any person connected with, or any person who has been connected with or employed by (A) a newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals and having a general circulation; or (B) a recognized press association or wire service; as a bona fide owner, editorial or reportorial employee, who receives or has received income from legitimate gathering, writing, editing and interpretation of news; and
(2) any person connected with a licensed radio or television station as owner, official, or as an editorial or reportorial employee who receives or has received income from legitimate gathering, writing, editing, interpreting, announcing or broadcasting of news.
Whether the reporter gets paid for what he or she does really doesn’t say much about the value of what’s reported and whether such reporting needs to be protected.
For similar reasons, I can’t get especially riled up just because a Justice Department subpoena happened to be directed at Associated Press records. Either such subpoena power is good policy when directed at any citizen or not. Paid journalists aren’t special little snowflakes.
Obviously no citizen should have greater protection from these kinds of subpoenas than any other citizen, but those definitions are meant to quickly identify those who are most likely to be harassed by a defensive or retaliatory government entity. Getting paid to report or being connected to an organization that has the resources to broadcast or print makes you more likely to be identified as a threat. While anyone who can get access to the Internet can now reach more people than Walter Cronkite could when those laws were probably conceived, those people are harder to identify before and even after they do the damage that harassment would be intended to prevent.
So they’re not special snowflakes but they’re the easiest ones to spot.
Comparing press coverage of the AP subpoenas versus press coverage of Wikileaks (see also) will be an interesting window into how much the major reporting organizations value the 1st Amendment generally versus how much they value the 1st Amendment for themselves.
“freedom of the press belongs to those who are rich enough to own one.”
Lol… so this is why the Koch Bros. are interested in the Trib. I’ve been snickering all week at the way reporters and journalists, whatever the definition in this day and age, and whether conservative or liberal, have been boo-hooing over Constitutional rights since the AP story broke. They sure seem to forget other’s rights when they slap a story on Page 1 about some poor sucker who has been accused of a crime but not had his day in court yet. And if the accused person turns out to be innocent, the story is usually buried back in the classifieds, and this person is left with a stained reputation, with the public believing the original Page 1 accusing story as proof of guilt. This happens all of the time in newspapers, on TV, and goodness, the Internet is like a wild west show when it comes to throwing accusations without proof around. Count me as one who believes in a free press, but a press that has brought a lot of grief upon themselves. It’s kind of fun to see the press people (or wannabe press people), almost to a person, squirming over this issue.
Comedy is when someone else trips and falls. Tragedy is when you do.