Many words in our country's constitution were not clearly defined at the time of its creation. One of those vague terms laid out in the First Amendment is the press. Our founders could not clearly illustrate who the press was then and the question remains unanswered now.Today's world of bloggers and citizen journalism only complicate the debate more, leading many to turn to Supreme Court cases and justices for clarification. Although the Branzburg decision ruled against journalists receiving protection under the First Amendment, each justice's opinion was subject to interpretation and allowed for future flexibility.
Justice White's defense of his decision referred to the First Amendment's press clause as a “fundamental personal right,” but if that were the founders intent, then a separate press clause would not be necessary at all. Press represents a business entity, therefore not every individual can be considered the press. Justice Potter Stewart argued in his 1974 speech at Yale that the freedom of press granted by the First Amendment refers to an institutional right. This idea seems more fitting with the founders' intentions than Justice White's concept of a personal right. One of the keys to his explanation that best denies White's argument is the concept that “if the Free Press guarantee meant no more than freedom of expression, it would be a constitutional redundancy.” To think that the freedom of the press gives the same protection as general citizen are provided, then Free Speech would have been all encompassing. The founders made it clear by specifically stating the press outright that the protection of the press was necessary for clarification. Not only are all citizens to be granted the right to speak freely, but a specific protection of the press is also guaranteed.
Judging by definitions from state shield laws Justice White contends that "the informative function asserted by the representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists.” Yet, none of the aforementioned titles are specifically mentioned in a separate context as receiving protection, nor do any other the above consider themselves to be members of the press. Another fact Justice Stewart so shrewdly notes, which is the thesis and driving point of his speech, is the undeniable notion that “The Free Press Clause extends protection to an institution. The publishing business is, in short, the only organized private business that is given explicit constitutional protection.” Remembering that the press is a business run by money helps to differentiate it from a citizen writing recreationally.
In many states that have shield laws protecting the reporter's privilege, a journalist is defined as a person working for and getting paid by a news organization. Although this definition may suffice for now, the future of technology is redefining what a news organization is. In his book “We're All Journalists Now,” Scott Gant asserts that citizen journalism is here to stay because new internet technology allows for quick and efficient fact checking. Yes, citizen journalists may be more reliable because of the internet access, but it can be argued that they do not have the same access a press pass provides for non-citizen journalists. Bloggers are not protected by state shield laws because they are not considered journalists. Yet, many journalists working for news organizations are paid to keep blogs. So one could argue that those journalists are not protected if they use confidential sources on their blogs.
In our current age of blogging, twitter, and citizen journalism anyone can be a journalist, but only few can turn these hobbies into full time careers. Many bloggers keep their identities anonymous, so how can protection or recognition as a journalist be merited if the public does not know who their information is coming from? Most bloggers or citizen journalists do not get fired because they fabricate stories, nor is there an editor to approve the use of a confidential source, so all the public has to rely on is that the publisher is trustworthy and ethical. Although, some of the above mentioned may occur in at a news organization there is punishment from the organization and government. If press can be regulated by government organizations, can it not be protected using the same methods of judgement? It can also be argued that since bloggers can be sued for libel they should also be protected under the same definition of the law they are being sued under.
A broad ruling cannot be given to an undefinable entity. The most fair definition of a journalist is the working definition located in the the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, a bill currently pending a Senate vote. The act states a person covered under the press is someone who, “regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate.” The terminology in this definition gives the most clear understanding to date of who a journalist is. Although it is broad, it remains selective. It is that selective nature that has the power to maintain the respectably of journalists and their work. Although the field of journalism is widening and changing form, it is still hard to prove undoubtedly that anyone can be a journalist now.
No comments:
Post a Comment