To act or not to act. That is the question.
In the last several years, bloggers have become important contributors to our national conversation. But that contribution is being ignored in Washington, D.C. Congress is debating whether to establish a federal shield law that will protect journalists from having to disclose their sources and news gathering material. But the current version of this bill defines who qualifies as a journalist in such a way that it will exclude anyone who is not affiliated with an established media organization. That means citizen journalists and bloggers are left completely unprotected. In addition, this will be a first step down the dangerous road of creating an exclusive guild of journalists.
There are two options: either we do nothing or we act. If we do nothing, maybe the bill will disappear. Or it passes and marginalizes citizen journalists and bloggers by denying them the protections afforded to journalists who work for large media organizations. If we act, we can encourage our Congressional representatives to change the definition of journalists to include bloggers and citizen journalists within the scope of the shield law. We might also shine a brighter spotlight on the topic of citizen journalism.
So that’s the choice: do we do nothing, or do we act?
If you have doubts about whether a shield law is important, maybe you should watch this video:
January 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
we need a new hearsay law that says the government, state federal or other, may not force an individual to name the source of hearsay statements the individual has made. put around the other way, in cyberspace it shall be a right of every citizen to speak hearsay free of government compulsion to reveal the source.
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 am
Interesting stuff there. I agree with EON, I don’t think anyone should be forced to give up sources like that.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:12 am
interesting post.. i disagree with EON, some people need to be forced
April 4th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The idea that each of us can be citizen journalist is pretty revolutionary. But I can see the other side of the coin were someone can just claim to be a citizen journalist in order to circumvent the law or obstruct justice intentionally.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I definetly agree with eon:
we need a new hearsay law that says the government, state federal or other, may not force an individual to name the source of hearsay statements the individual has made. put around the other way, in cyberspace it shall be a right of every citizen to speak hearsay free of government compulsion to reveal the source.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I don’t feel anyone should be compelled to give up their sources and if they refuse to, the certainly should not be punished or sent to jail - that’s absolutely ridicolous. I agree with everyone else that we need a new law.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
So anyone who posts on a blog about a criminal action should be afforded the protection that has been afforded professional journalists in the past. I don’t think so. The protection should only apply to cases where there may be polical reprisals.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I agree with Justin. Why should anyone have to give up their source if they dont want to. That is absolutely ridiculous.
bye,
faraz
author of Hoodia Guide.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I agree with Eon at 100%, cool stuffs here
May 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Thats insane, good post btw .
Zob
May 29th, 2007 at 5:08 am
I can’t beleive someone being force to make sources public. That completely ridiculous!
May 29th, 2007 at 6:48 am
I think there should be a parameter especially for bloggers which can qualifie them as a journalist.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I like this post… but are you planning on updating this site?
Joe Orchid
http://www.ocalanewcarquote.com
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:24 am
Nice reading. When new articles will come?