Chuck Schumer’s misguided attempt to redefine journalism
Merriam-Webster defines journalism as:
“The collection and editing of news for presentation through the media” or “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.”
Keep that in mind when you read the following, which comes from an amendment to the proposed Free Flow of Information Act, a law that would give journalists greater ability to protect the confidentiality of their sources. The amendment, introduced today by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), defines a journalist as one who:
obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity–
a. that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and
b. that—
1. publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
2. operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
3. operates a programming service; or
4. operates a news agency or wire service.
Who can you think of that doesn’t fall under this narrow definition? Let me think. Got it. Independent bloggers and citizen journalists. In other words, lots of people who write for this wonderful site. Or who blog at the Huffington Post. Or who chase stories for Talking Points Memo. You know, the slobbering, dirty, mindless people who brought you stories like this or who provided the heavy lifting that allowed the New York Times to write stories like this.
The language in the bill seems like a sop to traditional media outlets and a big “F-You” to everyone else. It seems that our remaining media titans have probably convinced lawmakers that bloggers are just a bunch of parasites. However, I can’t stress how short-sighted this is. I want to ask Chuck Schumer if he thought that New Coke was here to stay.
As we all know, journalism is in a state of flux and newspapers in particular are in dire financial straits. Because the cost of producing a print product is so high, news organizations are abandoning their print versions entirely in favor of moving everything online, limiting their print runs, or are, in the worst case scenarios, closing altogether. In any case, the play is to move away from the printed product and try to monetize content on the web, where the costs of distribution and production are virtually zero.
Given that the loss of daily papers can lead to reduced in-depth coverage of local issues*, there has to be a replacement of some sort if people want to stay informed about life in their communities. In several areas around the county, the replacements are coming in the form of outfits like VoiceofSanDiego or Spot.us, independent, online outfits that fill in gaps in the mainstream media’s coverage. For national issues, you can go to places like the excellent Washington Independent.
Or, that is, you could have. If this amendment stands, those organizations are going to be in a world of hurt because they won’t be able to protect the identities of their sources, greatly compromising their usefulness. Nobody’s going to leak to Spencer Ackerman** the details of a national security meeting if they think he’s going to immediately turn around and burn them because he doesn’t have the protection of a shield law.
A few uniquely constructed outlets*** won’t get caught in this net, but on the whole, this is a bad move for what we’ve come to call journalism. Cutting the legs out from under the very people who are now giving their time and skills for nothing more in return than the chance to make life a little more understandable for the the rest of us is among the surest ways to ensure that journalism dies a slow, painful death.
*Recent Pew polling shows that television is the preferred medium for local news, but I’m willing to argue that a lot of television news is built off the enterprise reporting done at daily papers. I’d further argue that the depth of the coverage TV provides is not in the same league as what you’ll get from a paper. I’d like to see the polling once a paper like the San Francisco Chronicle folds and KRON won’t have a source from which to take cues anymore.
**Ackerman isn’t an illustrative case because he’s formerly worked for print publications like The New Republic and The American Prospect and would, I imagine, find it not too terribly difficult to get his work into print should he have to do so.
*** For those that don’t know, Politico actually produces a limited run daily paper that’s widely read among the political class in D.C. The advertising in the paper drives the company’s profitability.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I am trying to get my head around what you are getting at here. Do you have any idea how many blogs there are with so called citizen journalists? You are training and studying Journalism, I assume you know something about ethics and standards in the field and you must surely know that no matter what condition newspapers are in at the moment, journalism remains a serious profession whose goal is to reveal the truth. It has a public trust and its purpose is to serve the public good as many court cases have confirmed.
Now anyone can start a blog and say whatever the hell they want, for the most part, and are protected under the first amendment. Newspapers and other media outlets, and I am sure Politico and Huff Post and many other new outlets can qualify but the entity itself is important in shielding reporters. For instance if in the case of the Pentagon Papers had Ellsburg had at the time a Facebook page, publishing it on line would have landed him in jail but going to the Times offered him a shield under precedents around the public good. The entity itself is a shield.
Now I am no expert but the law needs to be clearer in defining what amounts to the new media but I am for a clear difference between blogging and journalism.
libtree09,
I’m not advocating for the absence of any sort of standards, but journalism isn’t a credentialed vocation. A person with a high school diploma can be just as good a reporter as a person who got a four year undergrad journalism degree. The barriers to entry have always been fairly low, it’s just that now they’re virtually non-existent.
That said, there’s certainly a difference between traditonal, fact based “neutral” reporting and opinion journalism or blogging. I suspect much of what you’re talking about falls into the later category. If so, I agree. We need more people who are going to get out in the field, talk to people, plow through documents, and compose nuanced and analytical stories based on facts, not driven by conjecture or an ideological point of view. We need more reporters and less pundits.
In response to another comment. See in context »I know you are not advocating the absence of standards but the absence is there on internet sites that purport news gathering and in much of blogging. Perhaps it is my age and the fact that reading a newspaper has been a life long obsession from comics to sports to the whole damn thing but the slamming of what is now called Main Street Media just makes my head explode. Tradition, standards and ethics matter, getting the facts straight matters. The tendency to turn to the internet has, in my opinion, poisoned the well. I cannot imagine anyone getting away with the baldfaced lies out there in days where a reporter had to face an editor like Bradley. Yes the standard to get a job on a paper has been low but every paper was a university unto itself with professors of the street, of the court rooms and aisles of government buildings. To me there is journalism and everything else and I hope you never forget the difference. You write well, use your talent because the country really needs the truth so write to it.
In response to another comment. See in context »We need all of the journalists we can get, and trying to limit them through narrowing the definition in this age of technology is just ridiculous. I liked your reference to the soda. We need officials who are a little more broadminded than many who are trying to stifle points of view via legislation. Let’s try to hang on to the First Amendment a little while longer.
Interesting discussion. I wonder if you’d be interested in talking to my class at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism about this.