PressEthic

Just as the Judith Miller saga winds down, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind) is co-sponsoring the Free Flow of Information Act that intends to extend the privileges of reporters to protect anonymous sources. Writing in a Washington Post Op-Ed last April, he supported the bill by saying the law will, "give journalists certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment, much as, in the public interest, we allow psychiatrists, clergy and social workers to maintain confidences."

Lugar got himself in some hot water yesterday with his comments about who would be included under such a law:

"Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"

As could be expected, the debate in the blogosphere has shifted from applauding the action to demanding respect through protection in such a bill. Jeff Jarvis, blogger for the popular Buzzmachine, sums up his position in a post entitled, "Damnit: Journalism is an Act, Not a Person." A quick Google Blog Search of less prominent bloggers like DirectCurrent yields similar commentary: "I'm not thrilled to imagine that my opinions, views, or description of an event could get me thrown into jail; that someone who got a B.A. in creative writing and got picked up by The BFE Picayune somehow has more of a right to write than I."

My first reaction is that, no, bloggers are not journalists and shouldn't be protected under a the Shield law. Bloggers fill an important role in the news process by fact-checking the mainstream media, analyzing various angles of issues, and focusing attention on the important issues of the day. But, at least at this point in time, it's very rare that a blogger actually goes into the field and interviews sources; therefore, the need to issue protection under the law doesn't currently exist. Furthermore, on a logistic basis, protecting bloggers would be a nightmare. Can you imagine millions of bloggers expecting to be protected by the law under this bill?

But, then again, as blogs grow in stature, it's certainly possible that a high-level official will feed information to bloggers in the future. If you wanted to leak information, who would you rather feed the dirt to, the newspaper reporter who would need to discuss the matter with several other editors, or the blogger who would post the scoop within minutes?

The whole controversy actually makes me re-evaluate my stance on the necessity of the Shield Law. While Lugar argues that "compelling reporters to testify...hurts the public interest," I'm not sure he's taking into account the officials that disseminate false information to unscrupulous reporters. Should reporters that spread lies be protected under the law? Wouldn't doing so actually encourage the usage of anonymous sources?

It's a tough call. As much as I believe reporters should be given certain allowances, I'm not sure the community has earned the privilege of late. And, unlike psychologists, clergy, and social workers, journalist's "clients" often have ulterior motives or agendas. Regardless, it'll be interesting to follow the debate about the issue, both about the definition of what it is to be a journalist and whether Federal Shield Laws are even necessary.