Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Was Jeff Gannon a journalist? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)106. Actually,
I find the tendency toward authoritarianism by the majority of poll respondents here very disturbing
If we are going to accept that the government cannot define or declare that a free speech activist who leaks government secrets is a non-journalist and then unworthy of full first amendment protections then we cannot do a switch and declare someone whose politics are the total opposite are not journalist either. This is simply using state power as a bludgeon against one's opponents.
Whether Jeff Gannon or Wolf Blitzer who certainly did far more to propagandize for the Bush White House than Jeff Gannon ever dreamed of - is a journalist might be a matter of opinion like asking if Britney Spears is an artist. But I no more want the state to be empowered with the ability to determine who is a journalist than I want them to be empowered with the ability to determine who is an artist.
If we are going to accept that the government cannot define or declare that a free speech activist who leaks government secrets is a non-journalist and then unworthy of full first amendment protections then we cannot do a switch and declare someone whose politics are the total opposite are not journalist either. This is simply using state power as a bludgeon against one's opponents.
Whether Jeff Gannon or Wolf Blitzer who certainly did far more to propagandize for the Bush White House than Jeff Gannon ever dreamed of - is a journalist might be a matter of opinion like asking if Britney Spears is an artist. But I no more want the state to be empowered with the ability to determine who is a journalist than I want them to be empowered with the ability to determine who is an artist.
...that characterization is inaccurate. The shield law doesn't define who is a journalist. Also, there are no protections for journalists in the Constitution. There is no definition of a journalist in the Constitution.
The First Amendment protects free speech for all, meaning you can say and print anything.
The shield law adds privilege and protection for the practice of journalism. It's similar to licensing for other professions. You can't simply claim to be a doctor or a lawyer and go out and practice medicine or law, respectively.
The law has nothing to do with limiting free speech, impeding the press or preventing anyone from claiming to be a journalist. What it does is determine who qualifies as a "protected" journalist, and it doesn't automatically exclude anyone.
From EFF:
<...>
First, the bill defines covered journalist instead of journalist. Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a journalist or journalism for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.
Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting covered journalists, the bill also contains a Judicial Discretion provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield laws protection to any person if:
The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the laws strict definition of covered journalist. Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as firsttime freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an entity, are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfectthe legitimate news-gathering language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallowbut it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.
Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a salaried employee.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
First, the bill defines covered journalist instead of journalist. Although this may seem purely cosmetic, it is a significant substantive improvement. The bill now does not purport to have the federal government define who is a journalist or journalism for all purposes, but only the subset of journalists covered by the shield.
Second and perhaps most importantly, in addition to protecting covered journalists, the bill also contains a Judicial Discretion provision, whereby the judge is empowered to extend the shield laws protection to any person if:
on the specific facts contained in the record, the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case.
The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. It provides an avenue for non-mainstream and citizen journalists to demonstrate that they are deserving of the shield, even if they otherwise fall outside the laws strict definition of covered journalist. Thus, those journalists who may not have been covered by the 2009 law, such as firsttime freelancers or self-publishers who cannot prove a connection to an entity, are not automatically excluded. The provision is not perfectthe legitimate news-gathering language is a bit of a bitter pill to swallowbut it constitutes a vast improvement over the past attempts that we have criticized.
Third, the newly approved definition drops the requirement that the journalist be a salaried employee.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140
Someone offered the following names to support independent, non-salaried journalists, and I added links to their credentials.
Amanda Marcotte
http://www.slate.com/authors.amanda_marcotte.html
Allison Kilkenny
http://www.thenation.com/authors/allison-kilkenny#
Rania Khalek
http://www.thenation.com/authors/rania-khalek#axzz2fXZUeSwM
Molly Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/molly-knefel
http://www.salon.com/writer/molly_knefel/
John Knefel
http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/john-knefel
And I asked, what about Kos, is he a journalist?
How about Spandan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153
Who or what is the "press"? Some are invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Part of the problem in this debate is conflating individual freedom of speech with journalism and the press.
You can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.
There have been statements defining journalists as "analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest" or "writing" that is "meant to inform" or here:
No. Propaganda and advocacy journalism are not the same thing.
There's a difference between openly acknowledging bias in journalism and reporting factually-inaccurate writings.
No, a guy who deliberately publishes inaccurate information is not a journalist. Someone who reports with a slant but is factually accurate is.
There's a difference between openly acknowledging bias in journalism and reporting factually-inaccurate writings.
No, a guy who deliberately publishes inaccurate information is not a journalist. Someone who reports with a slant but is factually accurate is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post78
The fact is that just because someone says something and puts it in writing, and that person can because of freedom of speech protections, that doesn't make the person a journalist of the press.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
148 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I sense this is a loaded question, and you're going to ask the No voters "well then, what about..."
Electric Monk
Sep 2013
#4
He was a tool, but he most assuredly had White House press credentials.
DisgustipatedinCA
Sep 2013
#9
tou·ché - . (in fencing) used as an acknowledgment of a hit by one's opponent.
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#12
Well, obviously he can't be a journalist if we don't approve of him politically. DUH!
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2013
#19
A press pass is not a device for consitutional blessing. It's for WH security.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2013
#31
What would the sheild law do to change Gannon's status, declared by the WH as it was?
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#20
No less so than Chuck Todd but then again Todd gets paid so I guess that makes all the difference?
Uncle Joe
Sep 2013
#40
Exactly. That is why allowing government to define journalist is bullshit.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2013
#23
Yep, I was right. Nailed it with post #4, above. Probably thought you were so cute, didn't you? nt
Electric Monk
Sep 2013
#51
My first and primary question was 'what's this got to do with the sheild law' and you did your
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#128
No. The fact that he was paid to portray one doesn't make him any more of a journalist
Tanuki
Sep 2013
#21
He was a sleepover@White House shaved hardbody GOP blogger with terrible taste in men
leveymg
Sep 2013
#27
You should take a shower and get a blood test if you got close enough to know that about Jimmy Jeff
leveymg
Sep 2013
#39
At times he appeared to be a propagandist, but he worked in the field of journalism
Agnosticsherbet
Sep 2013
#33
We should keep the name and the story alive. Jeff Gannon - GOP's favorite male prostitute.
JEFF9K
Sep 2013
#41
I think Spandan is a shitty blogger who should be rejected by all sane people
Bjorn Against
Sep 2013
#52
I know what it is. Are you saying that a person pushing propaganda is a journalist? n/t
ProSense
Sep 2013
#70
Actually, I'd say that both you and Gannon would be more accurately described as propagandists
Electric Monk
Sep 2013
#71
If they're analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest, yes.
NuclearDem
Sep 2013
#59
That would be shitty tabloid journalism, but SCOTUS has repeatedly defended even that
NuclearDem
Sep 2013
#65
He covered the White House, got press credentials, was published, and had a readership.
WilliamPitt
Sep 2013
#50
When he wasn't pimping himself out for sexual service he wrote for a right wing rag
notadmblnd
Sep 2013
#56
"you can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press."
Chan790
Sep 2013
#120
Is John Stewart? Stephen Colbert? Glen Greenwald? Matt Taibbi? Greg Palast?
SomethingFishy
Sep 2013
#98
when CNN was propagandizing to push the invasion of Iraq or the impeachment of Clinton, were they
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#100
I find the tendency toward authoritarianism by the majority of poll respondents here very disturbing
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#103
for all practical purposes it does - it define who is protected under shield laws and who is not
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2013
#110
How did the 1st Amendment ever survive 224 years without defining journalist (or press)?
Faryn Balyncd
Sep 2013
#108
What's the point here? JG could have been a journo AND a male prostitute for a WH resident.
WinkyDink
Sep 2013
#148