Skip to main content

by Walter Brasch

Sen. Diane Feinstein and a horde of members of Congress of both parties want to decide who is and who isn’t a reporter. Sen. Feinstein says a “real” reporter is a “salaried agent of a media company.”

She mentions the usual suspects—New York Times, ABC News. She dismisses part-time staff. She dismisses freelancers. She dismisses those who write, often without pay, for the hundreds of alternative publications, and often break news and investigative stories well ahead of the mainstream media. She dismisses anyone who, she says, “have no professional qualifications.”

The reason she wants to define what a reporter is or isn’t is because there’s a federal Media Shield Law that protects reporters from revealing their sources. She wants to amend that to take away existing First Amendment protections from anyone not involved in—apparently—salaried establishment media.

There are people who have minimal qualifications to be a reporter. Many write nothing but screeds. Many have problems with basic language skills. Many have little familiarity with the AP Style Book. Many have an inability to ask probing questions of government officials; many merely transcribe what they’re told, whether from the president, a council member, or a local reader who is the focus of a feature. Some of them are paid salaries and are agents of media companies, which Sen. Feinstein believes are acceptable requirements.

There are also those who frequently allow “deep background” and “off-the-record” comments. Many news media won’t allow sources to go “off-the-record.” If the information isn’t available to the general public, it shouldn’t be available only to reporters. Access to news sources is something reporters enjoy that the average reader doesn’t; but there is a responsibility to the reader and viewer and listener not to hide information.

There are those who overuse the “veiled news source,” which is a part of the Shield Law. A veiled news source could be someone whom the reporter identifies as, “Sources close to the Governor state . . .” Often, the reporter doesn’t question a source’s motives for why she or he wants to give anonymous information, or if it is merely a “trial balloon” to use the media to put out information; if the people agree, sources become identified; if the public disagrees with a proposal, no one traces the “leak” to politicians or their staffs.

On more than a few occasions, reporters—whether “salaried agents” of a media company, part-timers for that company or for any of thousands of alternative publications or electronic media, or freelancers—have filled in holes in their stories with false identities—“A 55-year-old housewife in Podunka, who asked not to be identified, says . . . ” Good reporters seldom  use a veiled news source and then have to protect them should there be a court order to divulge the source of information.

On rare occasions, however, a reporter, in consultation with an editor, will allow a news source to be anonymous. Granting veiled news source status should not be given unless a source’s information and identity puts her or him into significant personal jeopardy—and the information can be verified.

But, even if there are reporters who are lazy, who plagiarize, who abuse the veiled news source privilege, there are no enforceable ethics rules in journalism. Reporters aren’t licensed—such as physicians, social workers, teachers, contractors, and cosmetologists. Only an editor can discipline or terminate an employee.

Nevertheless, whenever the government says it wants to define what a reporter is or is not—and the public, outraged over something a reporter or news operation did or did not do demands licensing and enforceable codes of ethics—a huge red flag should be in everyone’s face. Not one part of the First Amendment determines who or what a reporter is, or what is or is not news. The Founding Fathers didn’t forget to include that; they deliberately didn’t want to include that. They believed government shouldn’t be making those decisions, and the news media, even the media that base their news upon lies and scandal, must be independent.

And, yet, government and the news media often wink at the intent of the Founding Fathers and cozy up together.

The only thing more outrageous than reporters and sources playing golf or tennis together is reporters schmoozing at political receptions, the women dressed like they were movie celebrities on the Red Carpet, the men in tuxedos. And the reason why they go to these receptions? They claim it’s because they “get their information” there.

But, “socializing” isn’t the only thing that violates the intent of the Founding Fathers. It probably isn’t a good practice for Congress to appoint news correspondents to determine who is or is not qualified to receive press credentials—subject to the oversight of House and Senate leaders. Until recently, the establishment press of “salaried agents” refused even to acknowledge that members of the alternative press, even those who have won awards for investigative reporting, should be allowed the privileges that mainstream reporters are allowed.

It violates the First Amendment when police agencies and governments at all levels decide who can or can’t cover its activities. Usually, the ones excluded are reporters who are not “agents” of an establishment media company.

Until recently, it violated the intent of the First Amendment when the Federal Communications Commission determined what percentage of each day’s programming should be devoted to which category because of a law Congress created that decided electronic media, unlike print media, are required to meet the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

Under Sen. Feinstein’s belief of who and what a reporter is, Ben Franklin, who wrote hundreds of articles under the byline of Silence Do-Good, and was never paid for it, would not be considered to be a reporter.

[In a 40-year professional career, Dr. Brasch has been a reporter and editor for newspapers and magazines, a multimedia writer-producer, and university professor. He writes a syndicated weekly social issues column and is the author of 18 books, most of them fusing history with contemporary social issues. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania.]

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem is that the right to remain silent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit

    is being restricted to people who have been arrested. If there is a right to speak, a right to remain silent has to be implied. Otherwise, the right to speak is meaningless.

    But, as was perhaps anticipated by the opponents of the appended amendments, the referenced rights have been interpreted by our agents of government as the sum total of rights that need to be respected, rather than a sampling of those most likely to be targeted for disrespect, based on prior experience with English rulers.

    In any event, as Justice Kennedy says, enforcement of behavioral standards is up to the citizenry, since the judiciary has no ability to enforce anything and has to rely on the good offices of the executive. And the executive can't be relied on to respect human rights when the Congress gives them carte blanche to spy and subordinate individual rights to the "security" of the nation, an amorphous entity in whose name all sort of mischief can be planned and perpetrated. After all it was the honor of the frail nation which justified bombing the cradle of civilization to smithereens.

    But why does Senator Feinstein want to restrict the press? Could it be because she's been keeping secrets and willfully turning a blind eye to the spying -- an activity which is not, as far as I know, an obligation identified in the Constitution.

  •  Senator Feinstein is not a real senator so how can (0+ / 0-)

    she define a real reporter.  A real senator would would have protected us from the morass of governmental spying we all see now and she abetted this crap.

  •  Screw Feinstein. What a blight on my state and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hangingchad

    my party.  It literally leaves a bad taste in my mouth just thinking about the fact that she's my senator.

    I define "reporters" as those engaged in actual journalism.  Unsurprisingly, my list doesn't seem to have much overlap with Feinstein's.

  •  I disagree. The government -should- define (0+ / 0-)

    what a reporter is.  That is the only way that reporters can be protected from this bullshit.

    That definition should be 'Anyone who collects information and publishes, or furnishes to another party to be published, that information to the public, for the purpose of informing the public.'  

  •  Does this show Feinstein now senile, or has always (0+ / 0-)

    been an idiot with a very simplistic view of the world?

    “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New York Times or ABC News, not a “shoestring operation with volunteers and writers who are not paid.”
    Even Charles Schumer, who
    worried the Shield Law, if passed, would be used to protect whistleblowers and others who ferret out government corruption.
    had to educate Feinsten in virtual baby talk:
    “The world has changed ... there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to.”

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site