Sen. Feinstein During 'Shield' Law Debate: 'Real' Journalists Draw Salaries

from the protection-based-on-exclusivity...-what-a-wonderful-idea dept

Legislators are still trying to put together a national "shield" law for journalists (this is the third such effort at a national level) and, as usual, are bogged down in a semantic debate about who should qualify for these protections. Despite "freedom of the press" being hardwired into the system and the fact that a government effort to protect journalists from its own actions (seeking to identify whistleblowers and sources in order to punish them or shut them up) lies somewhere between "ironic" and "disingenuous," the pursuit of a credible "shield" law continues.

The bill's definition of "journalist" seems straightforward enough.

The bill defines a journalist as a person who has a "primary intent to investigate events and procure material" in order to inform the public by regularly gathering information through interviews and observations.
It also adds this stipulation, which is a bit more troublesome.
The person also must intend to report on the news at the start of obtaining any protected information and must plan to publish that news.
I can see this stipulation working against whoever the government feels is worthy of the title "journalist." News develops. It seldom has a distinct starting point. Of course, if someone is a journalist, it stands to reason that they're always "planning" to publish their findings. But that might be a lot harder to prove when the government starts slinging subpoenas.

If someone sends a tip to a journalist, it may not be immediately evident that it is newsworthy. It might be some time before it's determined to be important, newsworthy and its source in need of protection. It's a strange stipulation and one that seems to poke some compromising holes in the "shield."

But onto the "who's really a journalist" argument. Some elected officials feel the language in the bill isn't specific enough. One in particular, Dianne Feinstein, repeated the stupid but inevitable phrase that always accompanies discussions related to shield laws:
Feinstein suggested that the definition comprise only journalists who make salaries, saying it should be applied just to "real reporters."
This is nothing new for Feinstein, who's (along with Sen. Dick Durbin) previously made the argument that acts of journalism can only be performed by major news agencies, cutting everyone else out of the protective loop. This is a protective move based partially on ignorance and partially on the reality that major news networks are easier to control, seeing as most aren't willing to give up access to the Beltway by pissing off its residents.

Sadly, this sort of reactionary ignorance isn't limited solely to government representatives. This same sort of statement has been made by published authors to demean the self-published and by old school journalists to demean bloggers, serial Tweeters and pretty much everyone not associated with a sinking masthead. Whenever someone assumes they're capable of determining who is or isn't a real whatever, they're usually speaking from a position of privilege, one that can only be maintained as long as the status remains quo.

The same goes for government officials arguing over the definition of "journalist." It's someone who performs the act of journalism. It's as simple as that. But if you accept this definition, then you put the government at a greater "risk" of not being able to pursue and punish those who expose its wrongdoing. Feinstein makes this governmental fear explicit in another comment.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., wondered whether it could be used to provide protections to employees of WikiLeaks, an organization that allows anonymous sources to leak information to the public.

"I’m concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are not reporters at all," she said.
Two things to note: One, the government would hate to see people like Snowden or Manning go unpunished because someone at Wikileaks was able to deflect subpoenas and court orders with these protections. Second, this isn't just a government push -- the news industry itself has expressed a willingness to sacrifice Wikileaks in order to expedite passage of a shield law.

It seems rather unlikely the government would extend this protection to entities like Wikileaks (especially not with major news agencies on board with selling out Wikileaks, etc.), but at least Sen. Schumer pointed out that Feinstein's belief that "real" equals "drawing a salary" was a very ignorant take on the current reality.
"The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that," Schumer said. "But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill."
If this bill is ever going to provide real protection for journalists, it will first have to recognize that journalism isn't defined by the journalist's employer, paycheck or association with a large media company. It's an act and it can be performed by nearly anyone. More importantly, the bill should be equally as concerned with building in strong consequences for government actions that undermine this protection. Without these, entities like the DOJ will hardly be dissuaded from using "unofficial channels" to seize phone records or trace email conversations in order to hunt down protected sources.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Applesauce, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:03pm

    Wage slaves

    The only real journalists are the ones whose continued employment is dependent upon a corporate employer. Independent journalists are just hobbyists, right? /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:09pm

    Huh

    If "real reporters" are the people who draw salaries, then what does that make the interns at sites like HuffPost, Policymic, etc?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    sorrykb (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:11pm

    Special privilege

    Senator Feinstein:
    I’m concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are not reporters at all.

    The word you're looking for, Senator, is "rights".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Shawn H Corey (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:20pm

    Freedom of the Press means anyone can report the news.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:24pm

    I wonder if there is someway to get Feinstein out of the senate. She clearly fails to represent the people of California and does nothing in the form of oversight on the intelligence committee. She has to leave.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:44pm

    So do fake politicians

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:50pm

    JFAA by any other name

    Feinstein: "I’m concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are not reporters at all."

    Translation: "I'm concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are simply not entitled to it due to their relative lack of wealth and social status. Those who are not government-licensed journalists might take it upon themselves to speak their minds in public fora without displaying proper respect for (and fear of retribution from) their betters."

    Today it's a "shield law," but in a few years, expect to see it used against dissenters and sources of institutional embarrassment in much the same way the CFAA is today, but with much broader scope that isn't limited to just "facilitated by a computer".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    ss, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:50pm

    That's icing for me - I'm anti-fein

    If it comes out, from *any* direction, for the benefit of the public, notification as far and as wide that even you can read it over coffee well then I'd call that a free press.

    Senator Feinstein, you are derelict in your duties.

    The semantics of age old "press" aside, the freedom of your country is at stake and your knowledge of the potential for serious charges of breaching the founding laws of this country make you culpable.

    Whistle blowers have succeeded in enlightening the public to misdeeds that are done in our name and you deign to limit and threaten any voice that succeeds in the distribution of facts because they didn't receive a paycheck from Reuters? I sincerely question your integrity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:55pm

    99% of "real journalists" are not free to tell you the truth. They are too afraid to lose their job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 5:00pm

    A little history lesson...

    There was once a man, several hundred years ago. He drew his salary not through journalism, but as a customs agent (and occasionally he would help help design bridges, candles).

    Then one day, he wrote a leaflet, and signed it anonymously. This leaflet was distributed widely.

    According to Sen. Feinstein, this man, who did not draw a salary from journalism, did not deserve First Amendment protections for publishing his leaflet.

    The man is Mr. Thomas Paine. The time was January, 1776. The leaflet was Common Sense.

    And fortunately for us, Supreme Court precedent is on our side. From Lovell v. Griffin, (1938) Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote in the majority's unanimous opinion,

    “The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest.”

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 5:06pm

    No need for the American government to protect wikileaks.

    People have been leaking government secrets for thousands of years, so this attitude just means that we are back to the persecution phase of the cycle.

    Maybe it is a good thing, it creates value on the leaked information, it means you are putting something at risk, it means you really believe it should be leaked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 5:14pm

    Never go full retard.

    Senator Feinstein's gone full retard.

    She won't be getting my vote ever again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Michael, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 5:22pm

    Great plan

    This is a great plan. It's not like any important news has ever been broken by freelance journalists...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 6:08pm

    One thing to say about the paparazzi...

    Paparazzi by no means should be considered real journalism ....you folks ar TechDirt are a journalists who take your time to inform others of what you dig up....to inform others. You're not a gossiping speculating organization that invades privacy of public figures. I commend true journalists everywhere that adhere to ethics and accountability :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 6:13pm

    There isn't really a problem with who is a journalist. What the real problem is, is that our government is ignoring laws en mass as to what they say and mean. None of this would be an issue provided the US government respected the law.

    There are sufficient protections on the books already, except the government doesn't want to give up the convenience of spying on everyone, any where, any time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 6:33pm

    "Feinstein suggested that the definition comprise only journalists who make salaries"

    If you are a journalist who doesn't make a salary just create a company and pay yourself a $1/ year salary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 7:11pm

    The proof of what's wrong with California in general.

    Feinstein and Boxer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    artp (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 7:24pm

    Drawing a salary

    That kind of leaves out those poor souls who love journalism so much, or who are so passionate about the issues that they start their own newspaper/magazine/blog and print all sorts of stories.

    Having been a business owner, the "salary" for a small business owner is "whatever part of what's left over at the end of the month that you won't need for the business in the next two weeks".

    Feinstein needs to get a job!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 7:44pm

    Oh the 'writers' at TD are SO Desperate to be considered journalists, but by any definition, you simply are not.

    You could start here with a basic code of ethics, that would be a great start, and actually abide by that code.

    But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 7:50pm

    Oh the 'writers' at TD are SO Desperate to be considered journalists, but by any definition, you simply are not.

    You could start here with a basic code of ethics, that would be a great start, and actually abide by that code.

    But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here.

    Censoring from IP addresses now ??? Really ethical..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 7:58pm

    Have another report vote ootb. You just can't stay on topic.

    Get a life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 8:00pm

    Sen. Feinstein = Senility.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 8:01pm

    hmmm...

    More bureaucratic rules, obfuscation of the English language and diane feinstein…what could possibly go wrong…

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 8:37pm

    Glad to hear im not an accountant because I'm unemployed

    If drawing a salary/working for a firm is the requirement:

    My Former Bookkeeping business was not real accounting
    Im not an accountant despite my degree.
    My Grandfather was not a WW2 Veteran (Like most, he was not in the military long enough for a pension.)
    John Kerry is not a veteran (same reason)
    My mother is not a licenced masseuse (she's freelance)
    Those non-profit lawyers and doctors without borders should probably get their stationary updated.
    Ect.

    My point? A salary or an established firm mean nothing.

    Why

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 8:50pm

    Re:

    You don't know what ethics are. Move along.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 9:30pm

    Well, the obvious solution is to be a self employed journalist any pay yourself.
    Of course, then the esteemed senator will want to define journalist only for companies that actually make money. Fortunately, due to the state of modern journalism, there will be almost no journalists left.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    firingsquad, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 9:42pm

    Re: Special privilege

    To Senator Feinstein:

    And I’m concerned you being elected provided special privilege to your Idiotic comments and willingness to disassemble our Constitutional Rights as Citizens of the United States .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    FM Hilton, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 9:43pm

    What is news?

    So they want to change the job description of a journalist-fine.

    Then you change the description of the so-called news that so-called 'journalists' (who are paid to do it) report: the royal baby doings, and other heavy-duty trivia that passes for 'news' these days.

    That's called entertainment and frivolity by real journalists, and there aren't that many of the serious ones left. Don't even think of counting in PBS, because they've sold out like their brethren.

    Yeah, being paid by a big corporation to report absolute garbage is being a real journalist, unlike those on the Internet that report all that bad stuff, like Edward Snowden's thing, the NSA's doings, and other really stupid stuff.

    By that measure, Mike and crew at Techdirt night not be considered 'real journalists' either-they write a blog, not for a newspaper/magazine.

    Or anyone who writes in the ethersphere-like HuffPost, Salon, and the Daily Beast. Guess the definition of journalism can't be changed now, can it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 9:47pm

    Re: A little history lesson...

    Well done!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 10:57pm

    Re:


    Journalist:
    a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
    b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

    Journalism:
    a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media


    Funny, seems to meet the definitions of journalism and journalist...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Aug 8th, 2013 @ 11:02pm

    Re:

    "Oh the 'writers' at TD are SO Desperate to be considered journalists..."

    Nobody at TF has ever claimed such a thing. Feel free to prove otherwise.

    "But I cant see a basic code of ethics being employed here, things like 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'freedom from bias' and terms not generally known here."

    Stating something you don't agree with does not make it untruthful or inaccurate. Constantly making such accusations without a shred of evidence kinda clashes with your demand for ethical behavior. And freedom from bias has nothing all all to do with ethics, and only an idiot would expect such a thing from an opinion blog.

    "Censoring from IP addresses now ??? Really ethical.."

    Please back up your fantasies with proof.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Flack, Aug 8th, 2013 @ 11:35pm

    Flame bait

    Easy to press people's buttons here. Seems to be the standard for this paid 'journalist.'

    Apparently, anybody who can tap two keys in a row can call it a blog and therefore has earned the title 'journalist' or 'press.' Since that is everybody, I'd say those words no longer have any meaning. I doubt that is how the founding fathers thought of 'Freedom of Press.'

    Plenty of three word trolls to beat on Feinstein. Which commenter has actually proposed a better definition for 'journalist'? 27 comments - not one with a better proposal! Just everyone piling on the "I don't like her definition" stack - oh that helps the discussion.

    So apparently you all qualify yourselves as press now.... head on down to Giant Stadium tomorrow and demand your press pass.

    BTW: I'm a taxi-driver, I've never charged anybody though
    I'm a lawyer, I don't get paid, I just ruminate
    I'm a football star, just the Pro's don't recognize it.
    I must be a journalist, never made a nickel though - but if you send me something on Paypal - Nancy F will recognize me :-)

    Even if no editor, press, publication, on-line service, et cetera, has recognized/paid/published someone as a writer, investigator, or employee, you apparently are ready to recognize their self proclamation of journalist. If so what is the meaning of the word?

    JF

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    ethorad (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 12:41am

    Re:

    I think Free Speech means anyone can report the news.

    Freedom of the Press means that the press should be free of government interference, being intended to act as a watchdog on the government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 12:51am

    Re:

    "Censoring from IP addresses now"

    Do you have citations or evidence for that, or is this just another "Wahh" Techdirt won't stop classifying my trolling spam as trolling spam!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 1:08am

    Re: Re:

    To be fair, the "privileges" granted to journalists goes beyond those granted to everyone else. This is not so much a "government interference law" as it is a "non-interference law"...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 2:20am

    Re: Huh

    Easy answer for Sen. Failstein - Frauds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 2:48am

    Re:

    Censoring from IP addresses now ??? Really ethical..

    Being a lying anonymous shitbag now??? Really ethical...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 3:18am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So long as the government is defining who is a journalist then journalists are effectively part of the government. It follows that the privileges will be ineffective in allowing the press to act as a watchdog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 3:46am

    Re:

    What about freelance journalists? Spystein is a failure of a representative... if she claims to represent the people. What she actually represents is the establishment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 3:54am

    Re: Flame bait

    Ah - I see your problem - you are confusing the status of a journalist as a profession, with the respect that is afforded to its members, with the legal protections that are afforded to journalism.

    Let me take your football analogy.

    Anyone can play football - and when they do they are called a footballer and are protected by the laws of the game.

    On those occasions when professional teams play against amateurs (as in the FA cup - I'm British so I'm talking proper football here) you do not see the professionals having a different set of rules from the amateurs.

    Of course that does not mean that everyone who ever plays football is a professional - let alone a "star" - but it does make them - during the time when they are actually playing - a "footballer".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 3:58am

    Re: Flame bait

    A journalist is anyone who reports on facts. A renowned, famous journalist is a person who reports on facts that is well-known. Simple as that. Anybody can be a journalist. What can be questioned here and should be is the quality of the reporting. Does that journalist provide some critical thinking and deep analysis? Does he base his reporting on evidence?

    Seems to me you are what you are criticizing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 4:02am

    Re: Special privilege

    Srsly, from past events Feinstein is a complete moron. It's both amusing and shocking that people still give such an asshole their votes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 5:12am

    Re: Special privilege

    The government is trying to set a (horrible, horrible) precedent whereby they define which parties *deserve* Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and which don't. This would give them the unchecked power to, in effect, control all media sources, just like a third world dictator would.

    After all, nothing is more offensive to fascists and communists than freedom of speech and press.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 5:18am

    Re:

    That might be true in most of the MSM but not with regards to independent journalism. The former is losing out to the latter, which explains why MSM attempts to portray anyone outside their close-knit circle as being illegitimate, untruthful, agenda-driven, extremist, et al. It's imperative that we safeguard and protect the latter from any intrusion or abuse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 5:30am

    Re: A little history lesson...

    Exactly. Free speech protects the ability to say or report it. Freedom of the press protects the ability to disseminate the information to a wide audience publicly. It has nothing to do with being a professional journalist or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 5:43am

    She should be looking into what real Senators do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 5:53am

    Simple solution: Form a company, and pay yourself $1 per year.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Mike-2 Alpha (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Special privilege

    I suspect she sees no problem with denying people their rights because they don't qualify as "real journalists" in her mind because they don't meet her definition of "real citizens" either. In Senator Feinstein's world, "real citizens" don't question authority.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 7:39am

    that is as insulting as i'm sure she finds the statement that 'real senators do the job for which they were elected, ie, representing the people, not lying through their teeth to protect security agencies that continuously break the constitution and lie to the people!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 7:46am

    'If someone sends a tip to a journalist, it may not be immediately evident that it is newsworthy. It might be some time before it's determined to be important, newsworthy and its source in need of protection. It's a strange stipulation and one that seems to poke some compromising holes in the "shield."'

    it may well also give the person(s) the time and the chance to stop the something, cover the something, move the something or prepare a statement to, in their minds, justify the something. whichever may be used, the opportunity to reveal 'secret goings on' would be removed. this is the main reason for adding in ridiculous sections to a bill so as to stop things like the Manning and Snowden episodes from getting out to the public. just a 'legal way' of allowing the government to carry on doing whatever it wants to do against it's own citizens with no backlash

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:03am

    Re: Never go full retard.

    Again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:05am

    Re: JFAA by any other name

    ...with letters. Its the new ...on a computer!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:07am

    Real Threat

    Another real threat to America's freedom is ignorance. Why do so many people not realize that, while government activities including widespread surveillance and secretive activities are hard to take given that we are supposed to be living in a free society, we have a real problem in this world and our survival as a society depends on some of what has been happening concerning these activities by the US government. If news agencies are so hell-bent on revealing the bad guys, why aren't they exposing the real threats to Americans? This government has built in certain safeguards that really keeps checks on its systems. Why are so many ignorant people trying to break into that system that protects us from the real threats? Ignorance plays right into the hands of our real enemies. Don't ever forget that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re:

    Hey that is totally not fair. She absolutely represents the people... of the companies her husband invests in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:13am

    Re: One thing to say about the paparazzi...

    The problem with Paparazzi is that they use an erroneous interpretation of the law to exploit another provision of the law designed to protect journalists that are actually reporting news from being sued for copyright, privacy violations, publicity rights violations, etc. when reporting the news.

    The provision that protects news reporters is important for a couple of reasons:

    1. News often has to be timely in order to effectively serve it's purpose. Imagine how difficult and time consuming it would be to report on a natural disaster to disseminate important information to the public if the news media had to secure permission from every individual that appeared on camera live on a scene before they could air the footage.

    2. It would allow individuals to censor crucial information of public interest simply because they didn't like the fact that it was being made public or the way it was being presented.

    The erroneous interpretation they use is that because a person is famous, basically anything that happens related to them is considered news confusing "in the public interest" with "what the public is interested in" so that they can say that because the public wants to know, people have the right to know even if it is in no way beneficial to the public other than a sensationalistic and/or voyeuristic intrusion of the private lives of other individuals for others' mere entertainment purposes.

    The real issue is not whether the paparazzi should be considered journalists or not, it's whether what they published should be considered news or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    and the companies that donate to her campaigns.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:26am

    Re: Flame bait

    You do know that press passes have nothing to do with journalism in the legal and are actually third party agreements to allow access in exchange for abiding by a set of rules, right? I assume not given that you're bringing them up here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    slick8086, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:33am

    Freedom of the Press

    It seems to me that people like Diane Feinstein are try to interpret "freedom of the press" to mean "protection of the 4th estate" which is pretty much bullshit.

    Freedom of the press means that EVERYONE is allowed to engage in mass communication. Everyone is allowed to have their own modern equivalent of the printing press, and the government can't decide who is or is not "legitimate".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:43am

    Re: One thing to say about the paparazzi...

    Paparazzi by no means should be considered real journalism ...


    Oh really? You are being as ignorant as Feienstein here Wally.

    How do you propose to separate "gossiping paparazzi" from the "Entertainment" section of my local newspaper? You gonna base it on who their employer is like Feinstein?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:45am

    Re: Flame bait

    Blogs are the leaflet of the modern age. Leaflets are protected by freedom of the press - see my comment above, about Lovell v. Griffin.

    Your problem is that you think we need a new definition. We don't. Professional journalists are not the only ones who have freedom of the press - all Americans do, regardless of their profession, and all Americans deserve freedom of the press protections.

    In contrast, there's no "freedom of the taxi driver". There's no "freedom of the lawyer". There's no "freedom of the football player".

    But there is freedom of assembly, so you don't need to be some licensed professional who draws a salary to hang out in groups. And there is freedom of religion, so you don't need to be a licensed priest or rabbi to perform religious rites. And there is freedom of the press, so you don't need to be a licensed professional in order to disseminate news or publish material.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 8:49am

    Re: Flame bait

    Which commenter has actually proposed a better definition for 'journalist'? 27 comments - not one with a better proposal!


    How about from the article you are commenting on:
    If this bill is ever going to provide real protection for journalists, it will first have to recognize that journalism isn't defined by the journalist's employer, paycheck or association with a large media company. It's an act and it can be performed by nearly anyone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 9:39am

    Now we have to register our journalists too?

    First, gun registration, now journalist registration? Seems any right you have to ask to exercise is no right at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Steve Anderson, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 9:51am

    Journalism

    Ms.
    Finstine; you are a stupid fucking bitch!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Special privilege

    People don't understand, government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies themselves are an abrogation of our rights. They say that those who have such monopoly privileges have better communication rights than everyone else, they have the right to broadcast their message over these channels and to prevent those they don't like from doing so. No one else does. and it is the government wrongfully giving them this exclusive right. The government is helping a private party to manipulate speech in its best interest giving that party more power to do so than everyone else while preventing everyone else from doing so. It is not the governments position to do so.

    We need to abolish government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies for private and commercial use. The media is already held in a government established privileged position. That is what gives them an unfair advantage and what gives them an unfair ability to manipulate who gets elected to maintain their status quo. We need to start with abolishing these monopoly privileges and any other unfair advantages that the government gives some people over others. This includes Dianne Feinstein's attempts to give certain people shield laws over others. No, everyone should be on a level playing field.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    When the term "Freedom of the Press" was coined, the printing press was really the only effective means of easily disseminating information to the masses, hence the name. However, at the time owning and operating one was very expensive making it prohibitive all but the very wealthy to exercise this right even though it was granted to ALL INDIVIDUALS by the First Amendment and the term the "the Press" was adopted to refer to collectively refer to those who owned and operated printing presses and later was expanded to include other forms of mass media as they emerged. However today this prohibition is no longer exists. Mass dissemination of information is cheap and easy for individuals to do thanks to the Internet. From a Constitutional perspective it HAS NOTHING TO DO with "The Press" but rather the right to mass distribute information. Those pretending it does are trying to conflate the term "the Press" with the right in order to deny the general public of one of another one of their Constitutional rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 11:02am

    This is my problem with the idea of a "shield" law

    While I am in favor of it in concept, the problem is that every discussion of how to implement it involves defining what a "journalist" is. This would be a terrible thing.

    Journalists should not have any privileges that other citizens don't have. Any shield law should apply to everyone equally: it should cover the act of journalism, not some made-up new class of elites called "journalists".

    If a shield law requires designating who is or is not a journalists, then I think it's better to do without the shield law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 11:41am

    Re: This is my problem with the idea of a "shield" law

    Exactly. The bill of rights doesn't carve out special rights for certain people over other people. That would be contrary to the ideology of the framers that "All people were created equal." This is why the "Freedom of the Press" is not about "Freedom FOR 'THE PRESS' and not the public. The "who qualifies as a journalist" argument is in and of itself an unconstitutional one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re: Never go full retard.

    She won't be getting my vote ever again.

    Again?

    It's been a while that I've been voting to keep people out of office than putting people in. It's a problem with a two-party system is that you don't have to be good, just slightly less evil than the other guy.

    In the last few years I've been coming to realize that who's in office doesn't matter. Whatever ambitions they had are going to be lost as they either become ineffectual and voted out, or play ball and lose sight of their original goals.

    Senator Feinstein has either embittered or become senile in her years, but she no longer has empathy with her constituents, yet I don't believe anyone we elect in her stead is going to do any better. And, they'll shit all over gay rights, women's rights and religious freedoms as well, since the GOP platform requires them to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Never go full retard.

    It's a problem with a two-party system is that you don't have to be good, just slightly less evil than the other guy.


    I'm not sure this is a two-party system problem. I mean, the last couple of presidential elections had candidates from multiple third parties, but every candidate was severely flawed. I still found myself trying to pick the lesser evil, just out of a larger group of fail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Flame bait

    I doubt that is how the founding fathers thought of 'Freedom of Press.'


    Actually, this is exactly how the founding fathers thought of the freedom of the press.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Strafe, Aug 9th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re:

    Good point. Basically the argument is that a real journalist is someone who makes an income from it. The very definition of that is "professional". So I guess this means some people, like Feinstein and the troll you responded to, believe only professional journalists are deserving of protection, while so called amateur journalists are not. This leads me to the inevitable question of why money should be a dividing line at all.

    So how exactly does profit legitimize anything? I'd really love an answer to that from people like Feinstein and her supporters. You see the same thing in other creative fields too, like photography for example. Some how a persons work is magically better if they profit monetarily from it, thus giving them the "pro" moniker, and I've never understood where people get such silly notions. The internet is full of examples where amateurs blow away the pros.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 12:51pm

    Amateur and professional

    The internet is full of examples where amateurs blow away the pros.

    That is a phenomenon I've been enjoying come to light. Amateur and Professional were often used to denote degree of expertise, but a friend of mine pointed out Amateur means for the love, and enthusiasts are not only often good at what they do but often create masterpieces that propel a craft forward.

    I've since made a point to use the terms novice and expert to indicate skill, knowing a few highly-skilled amateurs in their respective choice pursuits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 9th, 2013 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Amateur and professional

    That's right. The thing that separates an amateur from a professional is that professionals get paid. That's it. And, as you point out, in most fields, the really ground-breaking, brilliant work tends to be done by the amateurs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2013 @ 12:31am

    Re: Freedom of the Press

    Exactly this... That is it and that is all. Destroying this is tantimount to treason and worthy of a revolution that sees all of these traitors thrown in jail and sent to the gallows.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 10th, 2013 @ 3:19am

    Re: Re: Amateur and professional

    In sport "amateur" used to designate a superior status.

    The captain of the England cricket team was for many years required to be an amateur. Similarly the Olympic movement excluded professional athletes - until the dodgy practices of America and the Eastern block rendered this untenable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), Aug 10th, 2013 @ 9:58am

    Gallows

    Guillotines are classier, and make for better jewelry.

    ...in my not-so-humble opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2013 @ 6:32pm

    Your're not a real Senator unless you uphold the Constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), Aug 10th, 2013 @ 7:50pm

    We have a lot of unreal Senators.

    Respect for the constitution, at least in entirety or when inconvenient, seems to be entirely lacking in Congress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Arth, Aug 10th, 2013 @ 8:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Never go full retard.

    One sentence about fienstien! "It is no sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society": Is it any wonder these people are hated the world over. Rgds Arth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Arth, Aug 10th, 2013 @ 8:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Never go full retard.

    Hi John: Unfortunately there is no lesser of 2 evil's, they are both tarred with the same brush. At best you could call it 2 party socialism where only the rich get richer. Both parties propagate lies & deception on a scale we can only imagine. Rgds Arth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    TEUTONICX, Aug 10th, 2013 @ 10:28pm

    Feinstein and the rest of the statist filth running the country are NOT senile. They have been chipping away at the Constitution and bill of rights since Lincolns time. Passing bills with language that to the untrained eye seems harmless or not connected at a the time , but later piggy backed on to justify new laws. These people ARE the enemy to our freedoms, stop framing it as a left/right issue because thas how this criminal cartel has stolen our god given rights and turned them into " privileges " which can later be taken away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    vincent, Aug 11th, 2013 @ 4:02am

    Re: Never go full retard.

    She's been the same way for like 40+ years of her "service" in "govt" are you seriously saying you're just waking up to this witch now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2013 @ 5:03am

    Re: Real Threat

    Either this is a skilled troll post, well-designed to elicit knee-jerks from both sides, or some PR shill should be fired.

    Except for the "while government activities including widespread surveillance and secretive activities are hard to take given that we are supposed to be living in a free society" every other statement could be interpreted to either have terrorists _or_ the NSA as the "bad guys" or "threats". Bravo?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    william wylde, Aug 12th, 2013 @ 9:19am

    UP YOURS, BITCH!

    Fuck you with a 2 foot diameter cucumber, Feinstein, you fascist bitch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Erik, Aug 12th, 2013 @ 10:32am

    Obviously the "corporate media" is NOT real journalism. They even use terms like "infotainment" and "news media" when referring to themselves.

    I mean, how else could one pass off complete fiction and propaganda as "news?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    T.S., Aug 12th, 2013 @ 3:54pm

    Response to: Shawn H Corey on Aug 8th, 2013 @ 4:20pm

    Freedom of the Press means that anyone is able to report any news. It means the government is restricted from applying regulations to quell dissent or generate propaganda.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    GoldHoarder (profile), Aug 19th, 2013 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Special privilege

    I'm concerned that Diane Feinstein has amassed a personal fortune of $100 million dollars working in Government for most of her life. This isn't even including her investment banker husband's wealth that she has helped to increase by steering defense contracts to a company he had ties with. Also helping him gain access to the "elite" only auction for large swaths of foreclosed properties at bargain basement prices he husband was allowed in on. But hey. I am sure Diane Feinstein has the American peoples' best interests at heart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 16th, 2013 @ 3:57am

    it is about the value of the news reported

    most journalist today have committed unethical behavior I don't want opinion I want fact. they have failed the public the shift to reporting news based on polling to me is not news, the complain about messaging what happened to reporting the real deal. I don't cared for the right wing slant or left wing slant I want the truth & we are not getting that just mag rags full of gossip & speculation. they all need to go back to school & relearn the ethics of pure journalism not based on who pays who but is reporting the truth which all have failed

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    stinkpiggy, Sep 16th, 2013 @ 7:53am

    Don't touch me there

    Something tells me a sexual experience would do Feinstein a world of good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Ron, Feb 2nd, 2014 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Never go full retard.

    she went full retard decades ago

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This