Is a Blogger a Journalist? House says No!
Posted: Saturday, February 28, 2009
by Avis Ward
GeoVi's Home for Pregnant Teens
The House says bloggers do not count as journalists. A bill in Congress deals with two versions that would protect the rights of journalists from divulging their sources. This information would be confidential. The government could not force journalists to reveal whistleblowers.
In the other version of this bill, it appears that Congress has forgotten the First Amendment. This version, gives a definition that excludes bloggers, independents, nonprofit journalists and freelancers. There is a consensus between the House and Senate on what duties are within the scope of a journalist and what defines journalism:
"the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photography, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."
But only the House version, adds to that definition:
"for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person."
What does it all mean? Writer, Jason Miller explains: "If journalism is a hobby or passion you do as a public service, or if you are a freelancer without a boss, both of which easily describe a blogger, then the government reserves the right to force you to tell them who told you something, much like the government tried to do with New York Times journalist Judy Miller under the Bush Administration."
Bloggers feel, "representatives have a real problem with citizen journalism done for the sake of journalism and for the good of democracy, and believe protecting the "free flow of information" is only reserved for officially approved press. No bloggers, no patriotic radicals, no underground agitator pamphleteers like the ones who actually founded and fought for this country to begin with."
Miller further explains, "By defining who is and who is not considered press, and therefore deciding who is entitled to special protection-in this case, especially, where they base it on who does it for money and who does it for passion (hint: the latter one is more likely to dig up something that matters)-the House of Representatives are doing us all a huge disservice if they don't change that language."
There are professional bloggers who take their work seriously. Conventions and conferences are held with awards and recognition being center-stage. One example would be Blogher, which is a community for women bloggers. Its site boasts of having 18,000 blogs and nearly 40,000 members! Do you think the House is threatened by the impact sites such as this have on our decision-making? Are we being sent a message that we are only to consider blogging as a hobby because blogs are not reliable sources of information?
I would not consider myself a journalist, no matter what the definition is, but should our government take this position? I am inclined to consider Miller's hint. When I work with a passion, I dig up things that matter not only to me but to others, as well. What do you think?
Avis Ward of GeoVi's Home for Pregnant Teens
In the other version of this bill, it appears that Congress has forgotten the First Amendment. This version, gives a definition that excludes bloggers, independents, nonprofit journalists and freelancers. There is a consensus between the House and Senate on what duties are within the scope of a journalist and what defines journalism:
But only the House version, adds to that definition:
"for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person."
What does it all mean? Writer, Jason Miller explains: "If journalism is a hobby or passion you do as a public service, or if you are a freelancer without a boss, both of which easily describe a blogger, then the government reserves the right to force you to tell them who told you something, much like the government tried to do with New York Times journalist Judy Miller under the Bush Administration."
Bloggers feel, "representatives have a real problem with citizen journalism done for the sake of journalism and for the good of democracy, and believe protecting the "free flow of information" is only reserved for officially approved press. No bloggers, no patriotic radicals, no underground agitator pamphleteers like the ones who actually founded and fought for this country to begin with."
Miller further explains, "By defining who is and who is not considered press, and therefore deciding who is entitled to special protection-in this case, especially, where they base it on who does it for money and who does it for passion (hint: the latter one is more likely to dig up something that matters)-the House of Representatives are doing us all a huge disservice if they don't change that language."
There are professional bloggers who take their work seriously. Conventions and conferences are held with awards and recognition being center-stage. One example would be Blogher, which is a community for women bloggers. Its site boasts of having 18,000 blogs and nearly 40,000 members! Do you think the House is threatened by the impact sites such as this have on our decision-making? Are we being sent a message that we are only to consider blogging as a hobby because blogs are not reliable sources of information?
I would not consider myself a journalist, no matter what the definition is, but should our government take this position? I am inclined to consider Miller's hint. When I work with a passion, I dig up things that matter not only to me but to others, as well. What do you think?
Avis Ward of GeoVi's Home for Pregnant Teens
This Article has been viewed 1,617 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)It's easy to see both sides of this debate, but it would be an easy fix to have bloggers get a license, thus qualifying them as official journalists, thus protecting their sources. Otherwise anyone could claim to be a journalist whenever they wish, which could probably inhibit many an investigation.Thank you David for reading and posting your comments. I agree, both sides can be seen and a solution could be requiring a license for bloggers but I am not sure what is the best solution.
Be well and God bless.
This is interesting, as a reader I want to know the source myself as I want to know it is valid and wasn't just made up so protecting anyones sources for me is a bizarre law, blogger or journalist.Meanwhile, that opinion aside, any public writer should have same rights as a journalist. One could argue a journalist has a wider audience and so should be more susceptible to scrutiny than a blogger.Interesting topic Avis.CB, thanks for responding and sharing your opinion. I agree with: "One could argue a journalist has a wider audience and so should be more susceptible to scrutiny than a blogger." I found it an interesting topic, too. I'm delighted you did as well.
Happy Birthday (although I missed it by your time), the heartfelt wishes are no less sincere.
Take special care, CB.
Yo should perhaps consider yourself a journalist, or at leats one heck of a writer! Great piece as always!You're just oh so kind, thank you, Myla! Have a great day!
Hi Avis.Well I do find this a bit disturbing. Not that I plan on writing anything controversial any time soon. But if the law passes and I did want to do that, the individuals involved might be a bit reticent to speak with me. And the world is full of free lance reporters and journalists, too.Thanks for an informative and interesting article.DianneHi Dianne, thank you for reading and your input. I tend to feel as you do. It doesn't apply to me now but could in the future. Glad you found this interesting, too.
Happy day!
Avis :-)
Hi Avis! One thing that our government is afraid of is an informed people. I think women, especially. It's the "Good Ole Boy" network working to maintain their hold. But we won't be silenced, right? Awesome article, but you never do any less.Right you are Ken, "we won't be silenced!" Thanks for the support! It does a heart good. Take care.
Dear Avis, I had heard parts of this story, but not all of it, or the implications that you mention. I like the part about First Amendment rights! I know that some bloggers present imagination as fact, etc., but some journalists come very close to doing the same. They slant news habitually. The proposed legislation still cannot remove bias in journalism. Thanks as always for a careful, informative, and important article! I'm going to try to pay more attention.Your friend~JaneJane, thank you for your kind comments. You are wonderful! I agree with you, too. Journalists will also embellish on the facts and some will inaccurately report them. I'm for protecting all rights granted under the US Constitution. Aside from it, in Christ, we're always be free so any attempt at rewriting His word is absolutely futile!
Read whatever you can of my articles, dear Jane. I desire to read all of yours and will get around to it some day. Knowing you care is comforting and I'm grateful.
Continue with the blessings on my life as I will yours.
Forever your sister,
AvisDear Avis, just touching base. Thinking of you and hoping you are well.
JaneJane, not sure if you received my email but I did respond. Thanks for touching base. All is well.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.