Showing posts with label Shield law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shield law. Show all posts

Friday, September 19, 2008

Who or what is a journalist?

According to Ed Smith, who has spent 30 years as a newspaperman, the question is about to become obsolete and inconsequential. He wrote a post today on the NSCL blog, The Thicket, on the dilemma of state capitols across the country in determining who is qualified to get press credentials. In particular, should bloggers be allowed access to press boxes and news conferences?

You'd think Mr. Smith, who is currently managing editor of State Legislatures magazine, would side with mainstream journalists, but he looks at the issue in practical terms, and he concludes that there never has been, nor will there ever be, a definition of "journalist". He contends that there is no licensing or board testing involved, and that's the way reporters and editors want it. In the end, journalism is not a profession, but a craft, he writes.

Smith's observation is that a younger generation of reporters find the question moot. They may be hired as a reporter, but chances are they are also being asked to blog, tweet, and take pictures too while they're at it. Accuracy and ethics will always be issues, but defining journalists is headed for the recycling bin.

For further reading, Smith points to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review - The Bigger Tent by Ann Cooper. Cooper's question is Forget Who is a journalist; the important question is, What is journalism? It's an excellent piece for anyone interested in figuring out who belongs under the Big Tent of Journalism. Here's an excerpt:

Access Soon after former radio and wire-service journalist Jim Van Dongen became a spokesman for the New Hampshire Department of Safety in 2003, he found himself confronted with press-pass applications from unpaid Internet bloggers and community-radio talk-show hosts. His first reaction: they’re not “legitimate” journalists. His second reaction: we need a definition of who is.

It was Van Dongen’s third reaction that was surprising. After trying out different criteria—journalists write for pay; they do original reporting, not just opinion writing—Van Dongen concluded that none of the criteria worked. In today’s digital world, he says, “essentially, anybody who says he’s a journalist is one.” So this past January, Van Dongen’s office announced that it would no longer issue press passes. “Either we must issue such ID to virtually anyone who asks for it or be placed in the position of deciding who is or is not a legitimate journalist. That is not an appropriate role for a state agency,” the department said in a January 15 news advisory. Though stunning in its symbolism, the New Hampshire decision didn’t have much practical effect; Safety Department press passes were rarely needed, except for access to the state legislature floor.

Nor have other institutions rushed to copy Van Dongen’s response to the credentialing dilemma. In institutional worlds such as government, politics, and business, many in charge of press operations still cast a wary eye at requests from outside mainstream media. It’s not that they’re inundated with applicants; many institutions say blogger requests are still something of a novelty. But they’re not at all sure what to do with someone who doesn’t look like a traditional journalist. Last January, for example, the retail chain Target e-mailed blogger Amy Jussel to say it wouldn’t answer her questions about its ad campaigns because “Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets.” Meanwhile, the New York Civil Liberties Union went to court in February to force the release of all recent New York Police Department decisions on press-pass requests; the action is aimed at determining whether, as some independent online writers claim, the NYPD denies cards to applicants who don’t work in the journalistic mainstream.


Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Federal Shield Law Stalled

Fernando Pizarro writes in his Advertiser blog that the Federal Shield law bill has stalled in the U.S. Senate today.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Shield or Sword?

Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, is not a big fan of journalist shield laws. As the US Senate prepares to discuss a national shield law, McConnell does his own prepping in a USA Today opinion piece in which he states that he doesn't see a problem with the free flow of information in the absence of a protected privilege for federal reporters. On the other hand, passage of the bill would be detrimental to the public's safety, and the ability of our national security team to protect national security information and to bring justice to those who break the law, i.e. terrorists. He also states:

This legislation upsets that balance by shielding those who illegally leak national security information and increasing the likelihood of destructive revelations in the future. The bill forces the government to meet ill-defined standards that require the disclosure of additional sensitive information. It also cedes critical judgments about harm to national security from national security professionals, charged with protecting the country, to the subjective determination of individual judges.

The Economist blog, Democracy in America, "Shield Me!", and the Wired blog, "The Shield Law: Truth or Fear Mongering", both pick apart McConnell's op-ed in yesterday's USA Today.

The US Senate is expected to vote on the proposed legislation this week; the US House passed a similar bill earlier this session. A group of 41 state attorneys general, including Hawaii Attorney General Mark J. Bennett, signed this letter urging the Senate to pass the bill. They state that with the exception of Wyoming, 49 states and the District of Columbia have adopted journalist shield laws either by legislation or through judicial decision. As we know, Hawaii just passed a shield law this session.

Don't know what California's shield law looks like, and whether it also protects bloggers, but consider this from Wired:

The most recent jailing of a reporter was of a San Francisco blogger who was released from jail last year after serving seven months for refusing to release videotape he took of a San Francisco protest, in which a police officer was injured. Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were held in contempt for refusing to divulge who leaked them grand jury transcripts in the BALCO steroids prosecution, but escaped prison after the authorities last year figured out the leaker was one of the defendant's lawyers.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Shield Law

The Advertiser today carried an op-ed on the Shield Law by Jeff Portnoy and Gerald Kato. While it is true that the bill passed unanimously, it did not pass without concerns. Also, while those close to the issue know that it was introduced and championed by Rep. Blake Oshiro, the op-ed does not mention it, so here's a tip of the hat to Rep. Oshiro on the bill's enactment.

For the sake of presenting another perspective, here are the floor remarks on Final Reading of Speaker Emeritus Joe Souki, who voted with reservations, about the need for a Shield Law:

Mr. Speaker and Members, I vote with reservations on this measure. I really don't see any major need for a Shield Law. I haven't seen any reporters being taken on and put into jail in journalism. They do have protections under the federal Constitution to protect them, and I don't see why they need additional protection at the local level.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to really consider this as we move along. I understand that this is an evolutionary thing that we're going to be looking at in the future. But we need to remember to keep things in balance. I think everything needs to be kept in its proper perspective, and I believe that the Shield Law is going beyond what is needed. Thank you.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Quick Update on Shield Law bill

Rep. Blake Oshiro, vice chair of the Judiciary Committee, offered a House Draft 1 after hearing testimony on the bill, HB2557. The HD1 included new language that addressed the question of what to do about bloggers and others who are not professional journalists, what Rep. Oshiro called a "catch-all". Those who are not professional journalists, but who meet the standard provided by the Ethics Code of the Society of Professional Journalists, would be protected under the proposed shield law. The other significant addition is that the shield would not apply when the news source agrees to waive the protection. The bill passed out of committee. It is a single referral, so it does go to a vote on the floor by the full House, but the bill does not have any more hearings in other House committees.

The Judiciary and the Prosecutor's office opposed the bill. The Attorney General appreciated the intent, but had concerns. The Honolulu Community Media Council, the SPJ Hawaii Chapter, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Musicians supported the bill. Six individuals submitted testimony in support or to provide comments.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Shield Law Bill comes up for hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 5th

Heads up - HB 2557, RELATING TO EVIDENCE, introduced by Rep. Blake Oshiro, is on the agenda for Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 5th, in Room 325 of the State Capitol. Here is the hearing notice, which includes info on how to submit testimony.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Shield Law on You Tube

The Hawaii Supreme Court (Unofficial) blog was first to post a 3.5 min. clip of the Shield Law public access program. Guests are Rep. Blake Oshiro, Rep. Gene Ward and Jeff Portnoy. Here's the link to their site.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Proposed Shield Law - Devil is in the Details

Photo: left to right - Jim Dooley, Ian Lind, Jeff Portnoy, Marie Milks, Gerald Kato and Chris Conybeare at the podium.

The room was packed and the hotel had to bring in an extra table for lunch. If that is any indication of the interest for or against a proposed shield law, the bill should receive a lot of thoughtful and engaging discussion at the 2008 legislature. Thanks to the Honolulu Media Council for putting on a great program. I did not record it, but here are my notes:

The panelists at the main table were Professor Jon Van Dyke from the UH William S. Richardson School of Law; Jim Dooley from The Honolulu Advertiser; Ian Lind, former Honolulu Star-Bulletin reporter, currently a free-lance writer and political blogger at ilind.net; Jeff Portney, attorney; Marie Milks, former state judge, who served as moderator; and Gerald Kato, head of the journalism department at UH.

Jon Van Dyke started off with a powerpoint on the history and background of the shield law issue. He summarized pertinent case law starting with the US Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) and ending with Jenkins v. Liberty Newspapers (1999). He also provided the status of the federal shield law bill which passed easily in the U.S. House, 398-21. Hawaii Congressman Neil Abercrombie was the only Democrat to vote against the bill, and there was a brief discussion on his stated opposition -- that it was unconstitutional -- and whether the constitution even addresses the protection. Van Dyke believes it does not - that there is no absolute privilege for journalists, and that the press is expected to cooperate in criminal investigations.

Jeff Portnoy believes that a shield law for Hawaii is necessary and required. He described a conversation that he had with City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, who apparently does not believe a shield law is necessary. That's because, Portnoy claims, he and Carlisle have always been able to negotiate a reasonable solution whenever there have been subpoenas of reporters. Portnoy argues, however, that there will come a day when Carlisle will not be prosecutor and he will not be doing the same thing he's doing, so why leave it up to chance that others will be able to work so collaboratively. Besides, it has not always been the case - remember the time Matt Levi was put in jail for refusing to identify a source?

Portnoy said that the legislature will have the hardest time defining what is a journalist and what is a blogger. Also, how extensive should the law be? Should it extend to Grand Juries? He believes the shield law should be as absolute as possible with some minor exceptions.

Jim Dooley pointed out that he was the only working journalist at the table, and his comments were based on whether such a law would impact on his daily work. I'm not clear on whether he favors a law or not. I got the sense that there are certain situations in which the protection would help to get sources to talk more freely and to not fear that a reporter would "rat him out" when push came to shove. On the other hand, he does not feel comfortable with government licensing or even defining journalists.

Portnoy added that it would be a mistake to frame the issue around the protection of confidential sources, because the real need is to protect the reporter's day to day work product - the notes, the computer files, the photographs, the footage, etc.

Ian provided a different perspective. I'm sure that he will go into greater detail of his position on his own blog. He offered the perspective that if the shield law did not include bloggers, that it would mainly be a protection for corporate media, and a step toward the government licensing of media. And in that sense, it would be unconstitutional.

Dave Briscoe from the AP offered an opinion that he did not want government to define what a journalist is or is not and asked whether it was possible to shield the product rather than who produces it.

If there are others who attended today, please feel free to add to this.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Shield law show airs tonight

Just a reminder for Oahu folks interested in the proposed Shield law - the public access show on the subject airs this evening at 6:30 p.m. - Olelo, Ch. 54. Reps Blake Oshiro and Gene Ward are the guests.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Rep. Blake Oshiro appears on "Shield Law" program

Rep. Blake Oshiro, vice chair of Judiciary and House majority floor leader, will talk about the proposed shield law for Hawaii on Olelo, Hawaii public access channel 54. He is a guest on the half-hour program along with Rep. Gene Ward and attorney Jeff Portnoy, who represents various Hawaii media as legal counsel. Here are the dates and times:

October 15, 2007 - 6:30 p.m.
October 22, 2007 - 8:00 a.m.
October 29, 2007 - 8:00 p.m.
November 5, 2007 - 8:00 a.m.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

More on shield law...

Question was asked yesterday on why the distinction between journalists, former journalists, and bloggers. Here's an explanation from Rep. Blake Oshiro, vice chair of Judiciary and House majority floor leader, who has authored draft legislation:

"The distinction was based on laws from a majority of other states. The issue is about providing additional 1st amendment protections for freedom of press. Thus, there must be some measure of "press." Bloggers, without any prior journalism or media experience, still enjoy first amendment free speech rights, just not the same legal protections as a "journalist." Also, there are established standards for journalism ethics, but to my knowledge, none exist for blogging, so those conducting themselves within those ethical standards, should enjoy their full freedom of press rights."