U.S. Senate: bloggers not journalists

From Editor & Publisher:

Bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists under the proposed federal shield law, the bill's co-sponsor, U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), told the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) Monday afternoon.

Lugar emphasized, however, that debate is not yet closed on how to define a journalists under the proposed law.

Gee, do you suppose Lugar's senate friends will have some fun defining who can be covered by their new law?

E&P's reporter seems to wonder about that too, as witnessed in this paragraph:

A key reason some journalists oppose the popular federal shield proposal is fear that giving Congress the power to define who is and isn't a journalist could lead effectively to the licensing of journalists.

Hmmm ... that would seem to violate the spirit of the "Congress shall make no law ..." wording in the U.S. Constitution. This leads us to propose our own definition HERE.

By the way, there is no need for a shield law. It will merely encourage journalists to use "anonymous sources" and "persons close to ..." even when they do not exist.

Journalists are citizens first. They are not super-citizens.

Sometimes the greater part of valor is spilling the beans. Some sources aren't worth protecting, especially if the information can be obtained elsewhere, or if it isn't particularly noteworthy to begin with. Too many public officials like to play the "you can't use my name" game. A little fear of disclosure would not hurt them too badly.

That doesn't mean a reporter should always reveal their sources. Sometimes the greater part of valor is keeping your mouth shut and going to jail -- if the stakes are great.

Judith Miller does not need defending by the U.S. Senate. Even if she does work for the almighty New York Times.