Sen. Dick Durbin: Journalists Deserve Protection But We'll Decide Who's Actually A Journalist

[KoKo]

(Surprised to see this from Senator Durbin)

-----------
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has penned an editorial for the Chicago Sun-Times in which he argues that journalists need some form of government-granted protection, but that the government should decide who is a real journalist and who isn't.

As he points out, there is currently no national "shield" law that protects journalists and their sources, although a bill along those lines is slowly making its way through the system. Durbin seems to feel a great many people should be excluded from this protection, though -- possibly for no other reason than the platform used.

The media informs the public and holds government accountable. Journalists should have reasonable legal protections to do their important work. But not every blogger, tweeter or Facebook user is a “journalist.” While social media allows tens of millions of people to share information publicly, it does not entitle them to special legal protections to ignore requests for documents or information from grand juries, judges or other law enforcement personnel.

There's your new have-nots, if Durbin's deciding. Here's the list of who Durbin feels actually deserves the "journalist" label and its associated protections.

A journalist gathers information for a media outlet that disseminates the information through a broadly defined “medium” — including newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, magazine, news website, television, radio or motion picture — for public use. This broad definition covers every form of legitimate journalism.

The internet: illegitimate journalism. Journalism isn't a static object with a single definition, it's something people do, with or without the title, and the dissemination of these endeavors spans many platforms. While there are a lot of old school journalism outlets listed, Durbin also includes "news website," which covers a whole lot of gray area (Buzzfeed? TMZ? Vice?). Without further details, it would appear a "news website" will probably have to be anchored by one of the other "time-honored" journalism outlets.

He goes on to cite recent events as evidence this protection is needed.

The leaks of classified information about the NSA’s surveillance operations and an ongoing Justice Department investigation into who disclosed secret documents to the Associated Press have brought this issue back to the forefront and raised important questions about the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and how our nation defines journalism.

Allowing the government to pick and choose who is protected will likely result in a large number of unprotected journalists, thanks to an inadequate definition.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130701/12253023682/sen-dick-durbin-journalists-deserve-protection-well-decide-whos-actually-journalist.shtml

[DJ13]

1. What happened to Durbin?

Has all of DC been converted to Pod People in the last few years?

[factsarenotfair]

2. It's really disturbing.

I was wondering the same thing myself.

[murielm99]

3. I have noticed that, too,

and he is my Senator. I am active politically in Illinois, and this is not the half of it. He has made some very poor judgments about people he has supported here. He has used his position in ways that I find disappointing.

I don't think he should retire, though. That would create a power vacuum that would be hard to fill! We just need to keep letting him know when we are disappointed by his behavior and comments. He is accessible, and he may listen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. According to tice (another whistleblower) there has been mass

NSA monitoring of all three branches of government. Need I point out the problem with this?

I think we are seeing the results.

[DJ13]

5. That would explain most every decision of the last 10 years

That also points out that the NSA data is being used by private corporations to coerce political favors.

So who are the real terrorists in that scenario?