Comments for US Congress: Bloggers Are Journalists Too

US Congress: Bloggers Are Journalists Too

2007-10-17T20:00:25Z

Ars Technica reported late last night that the Free Flow of Information Act, which would grant protection of sources and documents at a federal level to journalists, including professional bloggers, easily passed the US House of Representatives by a vote of 398-21. The bill, which was cosponsored by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN), still may never become a law should it reach President Bush's desk.

According to Ars, the Bush administration views the FFIA "as carte blanche to leak government information without penalty," and released a statement yesterday in opposition citing the "overriding imperative to protect national security," as a reason for their objection to the measure.

]]> As Ars Technica notes, though the FFIA would would extend coverage to professional bloggers as journalists, the definition of "journalist" would likely be debated at length in court. Ars writer Nate Anderson recalls Apple's lawsuit against AppleInsider and PowerPage a few years ago over a product breach, in which case Apple claimed that bloggers were not journalists. What makes a journalist and what makes a professional blogger are finer points of the bill that would be up to the courts to interpret.

It should certainly be noted, though, that most major mainstream news organizations now employ full time bloggers and have detailed blogging strategies implemented on their web sites. Further, top news organizations like USA Today, Reuters and Fox are licensing blog content through BlogBurst for their publications. So it follows that at least some bloggers are firmly operating in the realm of traditional journalists and should enjoy the same shield protection.

The Senate will be considering a similar bill.

What do you think? Should bloggers be treated as journalists? Should any journalists have shield protection to allow them to keep their sources and notes private? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Comment from Richard Becker on 2007-10-17

2007-10-17T23:45:04Z

I've always maintained that some bloggers could be journalists (and some journalists are bloggers). Many are not. Many don't even want to be. But the real problem continues to be people who define an activity as if it were a noun.

And yes, shield laws are extremely important to preserve The First Amendment.

Comment from Yihong Ding on 2007-10-17

2007-10-18T02:47:35Z

Some bloggers are journalists, while some others are not. But no matter they are or not journalists, there should be some laws protect the rights of bloggers. This is what I think.

-- Yihong

Comment from Deepak on 2007-10-17

2007-10-18T04:44:01Z

I've always wondered about that. I've never considered myself a journalist, just a blogger. But since I get syndicated via blogburst and occasionally "report" on newsworthy events, some level of protection would be appreciated.

Comment from Dr. A. N. Feldzamen on 2007-10-18

2007-10-18T19:33:02Z

When the Constitution was written, the Founders believed that the rights of the "pamphleteer" -- one who wrote, printed, and perhaps himself or herself distributed, a leaflet or a pamphlet -- were as fully deserving of press protection as those of a newspaper employee. In today's world a blogger is the exact analog of such a pamphleteer, and the proposed press protection for journalists would have to be extended to bloggers. Then anyone, since it is rather easy to create a blog, and involves no significant expense, could refuse testimony in court on the basis of legislation that now appears to be ready to pass in the Congress. Would this not seriously hamper our federal justice system?

Comment from Maurreen Skowran on 2007-10-18

2007-10-19T06:28:57Z

I'm probably among the few journalists who don't support shield laws.

Problems relating to defining journalism and journalists aren't my only concerns.

The news industry has overused anonymous sources. If we think such a source is important enough, we should have the courage to take a risk and, if needed, exercise civil disobedience.

Comment from Nick on 2007-10-20

2007-10-20T10:41:37Z

I agree with Maurreen. It's become popular for the masses to just blindly oppose anything Bush is in favor of, but you have to realize just how much power the media has to shape our society. Granting them immunity from telling their sources is like handing them a get out of telling the truth free card.

Look at what the news has become - a race to see who can spew the most hype, trash, and controversy. With billions of advertising dollars at stake don't think for a second that they won't "make stuff up" to get your eysballs.

Asking them to be able to provide proof if asked is not asking to much