General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWas Jeff Gannon a journalist?
16 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
1 (6%) |
|
No | |
14 (88%) |
|
Not sure | |
0 (0%) |
|
Who the hell is Jeff Gannon? | |
1 (6%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
gopiscrap
(23,674 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)A compleat Republicon, he was well loved by other Republicons because of it. But a journalist, no. He was that peculiar Republicon creature: a pompous and overpaid propaganda pimp.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Good times, good times.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)person X? Why are they a journalist if Gannon wasn't?"
edbermac
(15,919 posts)But what do I know?
Brother Buzz
(36,212 posts)instead of a bona fide congressional press pass doesn't mean he wasn't a genuine Journo, SO STOP SAYING THAT!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So I have to go with "yes"
Behind the Aegis
(53,823 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Bloggers deserve no protection because Gannon.
It's good to know what the next attack vector will be, if also a little nauseating.
Iggo
(47,487 posts)....and so much more.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)And, having said that, I have to go throw up.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Confirmation is mine at last. I'm going with it.
Lars39
(26,093 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)used as an acknowledgment during a discussion of a good or clever point made at one's expense by another person
Or frankly whether he is or is not - I would not allow the government the power to decide whether he is or is not.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I'll let you know what the official-type answer is, settling the matter once and for all.
reddread
(6,896 posts)a spin doctor propagandist.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...a tool of fascism.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Just look at some of the posts in this thread. He's not even allowed to be gay without that being a source of ridicule. All who fall into the disfavor of The Party shall be denied their human and legal considerations. All right thinking people accept this.
randome
(34,845 posts)The subject is journalism. Outside of what the Constitution defines, why should a prostitute be allowed more privileges than the rest of us? Gannon no more deserved a press pass than you or I.
Besides, all this nonsense is irrelevant since the bill being considered is how to extend journalistic Shield laws, not deny extra privileges to anyone.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Just wait until some GOPer starts harassing progressive bloggers with malicious prosecutions and it would almost be comical. I almost wish they would do it just to see the reactions from this mob.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Would the WH no longer be able to grant a pass to him? If not, what's the point of your question?
Do you think 'journalist' means 'writer with whom we agree'?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You can always tell the worst propaganda, because it only makes its point through insinuation; it doesn't dare speak it openly.
Whatever anyone's opinion of Gannon, that is not a reason to trash the Constitution and permit Dianne Feinstein, or anyone in government, the power to decree who is and who is not a journalist.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3702583
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What an incredibly slimy and manipulative OP."
What a lame, deceptive and nasty attempt at deflection.
Was Gannon a journalist?
Can you answer that?
Uncle Joe
(58,111 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)It is.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Perfect.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Do you think 'journalist' means 'writer with whom we agree'?"
How about Spandan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153
Whether I "agree" with Gannon or not had nothing to do with my point, and I suspect you knew that.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)tarantella around that one entirely. You have to answer the questions in the order they are asked of you, this is not one of your sloppy say anything centrist blogs. Just because the question leaves you stymied you don't get to pretend it was not asked and snarl back with questions of your own. If you can't play, don't try.
Tanuki
(14,893 posts)than Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman would be for portraying journalists in "All the President's Men."
Enrique
(27,461 posts)and can we take this question to mean Obama is on board with the DiFi bill?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I never read any of his work, so can't really say whether he was a "journalist."
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)James Dale Guckert, or whatever his real name is.
ICK! GAG!
Thanks for going there so we don't have to!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)and even if he was a despicable person who wrote hyper slanted articles and existed as a "friend of Rove" who wrote ideologically pure articles, yes he was a Journalist work for organizations exclusively on the ideological far right.
If all he ever did was hang out on Free Republic and post links to racist sexist homophobic (this would be before he was outed) diatribes on his personal journal or blog, he would not have been a journalist.
I would love to limit journalism to only legitimate news organizations, but they are wondrously (perhaps even extinct) rare now days. It would be nice to limit journalism to only those that write or broadcast articles that are ideologically neutral, but I only no one person who even comes close to that marker. Those who write or broadcast news or opinion from ideologically left sources justify my own set of political philosophies, but they are as suspect as many on the right and should be fact checked.
To me, the real source of legitimate journalism is with the many small, local internet magazines that have, for the most part, replaced local papers and news organizations. They don't have the money to report on international stories, or even national stories (unless that story is situated within their small geographic region), but these are genuine organizations who service their local communities.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I would love to limit journalism to only legitimate news organizations, but they are wondrously (perhaps even extinct) rare now days...To me, the real source of legitimate journalism is with the many small, local internet magazines that have, for the most part, replaced local papers and news organizations. They don't have the money to report on international stories, or even national stories (unless that story is situated within their small geographic region), but these are genuine organizations who service their local communities.
...as it stands now, 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:
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 journalist, 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
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The first Amendment is not just for paid professional Obama shills."
...not everyone is up on the details of the bill as it stands now. It does not state that journalists need to be salaried or "paid professional Obama shills."
Reaction to Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704140
Who or what is the "press"? I think invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history is absurd.
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.
reddread
(6,896 posts)"the press" and "journalists" are two different things.
in the last few years we have seen how many Bill of Rights amendments forsaken?
which ones do you think we should keep?
which ones are worthy of parsing into nothingness?
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Ya, I remember that shit. He was a Bush propaganda plant. He certainly was not "the press."
But, Fox news is not "the press" either. Heck, very little of our press is actual press. It is mostly propaganda.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I think when it comes to journalistic protections our definition of journalist needs to be very broad. I certainly don't approve of Gannon, but I am not going to use him as an excuse to limit Freedom of the Press.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yes. He was a crappy journalist, but he was a journalist.
I think when it comes to journalistic protections our definition of journalist needs to be very broad. I certainly don't approve of Gannon, but I am not going to use him as an excuse to limit Freedom of the Press.
...does not "limit Freedom of the Press." 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:
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.
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.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Blogs reach a lot of people sometimes and a post on the internet can travel a long ways, the first amendment was written in a very broad manner and I think it should be applied in a very broad manner.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"In today's world I think anyone can be the press. Blogs reach a lot of people sometimes and a post on the internet can travel a long ways, the first amendment was written in a very broad manner and I think it should be applied in a very broad manner. "
So any blogger, for example Spandan (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023703153), is "the press" in your opinion?
Anyone "can be," but does that mean any is?
Again, anyone can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I also believe he is entitled to the full protections of the first amendment however, and if he wants to call himself a journalist I won't object. I will call him a shitty journalist, but I don't think journalistic protections should hinge on the quality of the work.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I also believe he is entitled to the full protections of the first amendment however, and if he wants to call himself a journalist I won't object."
...his "full protections of the first amendment" aren't affected by the label "journalist."
I don't call him a "journalist." Do you?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I do consider bloggers to be journalists however so I guess I would technically consider him a journalist, but when speaking of him you are probably far more likely to hear me refer to him as a douchebag than a journalist.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Yes.
Think back to the time the FF's were alive, the only requirement back then to be a member of the free press was a printing press to put out news.
The 'net is today's printing press, thats really the only difference.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The folks over at Free Republic are "the press"?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You analyze current events and public figures to inform other people.
While Freeperville is otherwise an abomination, members there who do similar to what you do are part of the press as well.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Do you think a national registry to qualify as a member of the press is a good idea?
Where could that lead?
"You can be, yes
Do you think a national registry to qualify as a member of the press is a good idea?
...this person (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023577288) was "the press"?
Is there any objectivity and reliability inherent in the role of a journalist? Is a person pushing propaganda a "journalist"?
Retraction and Apology to Our Readers for Mint Press Article on Syria Gas Attack
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023702455
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)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.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)You both care more about framing and painting reality to fit your already determined narratives (Our Glorious Leader can do no wrong!). You just have different Glorious Leaders.
Real honest journalism cares more about being objective, though, first and foremost.
Lots of interesting reading on the subject can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Modern_propaganda_techniques
(if this post goes to a jury, please review my other posts in this thread first before voting on this one, thanks)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You both care more about framing and painting reality to fit your already determined narratives (Our Glorious Leader can do no wrong!). You just have different Glorious Leaders.
Real honest journalism cares more about being objective, though, first and foremost.
...you agree with me that Gannon is not a journalist, but my stating that is "propaganda" aimed at "framing and painting reality to fit" my "already determined narratives"?
I'm detecting serious bias in your comment and a lame attempt at a personal attack.
Stiil, you're right about Gannon.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)What someone used to have to own a printing press to do, Twitter and the blogosphere allows millions of people to do.
So, yes, Spandan espouses some of the worst centrist propaganda out there, and I have no respect for him as a progressive, but his publication of analysis and research on current events makes him a member of the press.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If they're analyzing or reporting on current events or things in the public interest, yes."
...who determines "current events" or "the public interest"?
If someone starts a blog dedicated to Obama's birth certificate, is that person a "journalist"?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)As legitimate journalism, even if the content is low brow.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That would be shitty tabloid journalism, but SCOTUS has repeatedly defended even that"
...but where did the SCOTUS defend it as "journalism"?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Near v Minnesota.
Page 283 U. S. 720
property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy consistent with constitutional privilege.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Has to do with a tabloid publisher of nonsense.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If someone starts a blog dedicated to Obama's birth certificate, is that person a "journalist"? "
By your own definition:
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
There are people who have implied that others of being "paid shill" and are now claiming anyone posting here is "the press." Seems a bit disingenuous.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)made him a journalist?
A virtual organization with no physical office space or newsroom, Talon News was owned by a conservative activist group called GOPUSA. Robert Eberle, the president and CEO of GOPUSA, held both titles for Talon News as well.
According to Media Matters, "Talon News apparently consists of little more than (Robert) Eberle, (Jeff) Gannon, and a few volunteers, and is virtually indistinguishable from GOPUSA.com.[1][2]
Initially, Talon News made its articles available on their website, but in September 2004,[3] moved them to GOPUSA.com and simply re-directed visitors asking for the full news articles there with the statement "This story can be found on our #1 client GOPUSA!". In January 2005, during the controversy, Talon News removed information from its biography section regarding some of its employees, including the reporter at the center of the controversy, Jeff Gannon.[4][5][6]
The Talon News site went entirely off line on February 23, 2005, to "re-evaluate operations." Since May 2007,[7] the Talon News site has been a parody, and its pages link to The Firesign Theatre's site.[8]
- more -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talon_News
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Jayson Blair broke the first commandment of journalism and was rightly excommunicated...but he was still a journalist.
Gannon was and remains a joke, but is he any worse than Chuck Todd, a total hack whose journalism cred no one is allowed to dispute because he works for a cable news company?
Truthout has a number of excellent reporters who cover very important stories. Under the new definitions being bandied about, they would not qualify as "journalists."
So, yeah, Gannon was a journalist.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He covered the White House, got press credentials, was published, and had a readership."
...it's good to know that you're now legitimatizing Bush/Rove's fradulent process for introducing Gannon to the WH.
Talon News "published" his pieces so that made him a "journalist"?
Spandan is "published" and has a "readership." Is he a "journalist'?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Or, better that 100 derpy frauds enjoy the title of journalist than one real journalist be denied that title.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Or, better that 100 derpy frauds enjoy the title of journalist than one real journalist be denied that title.
...clever, but no one is denying "one real journalist" the title.
Simple question: Is anyone who puts anything in writing that is read by others a journalist and the press?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Let me ask you this: the Occupy activists who filmed acts of police brutality on their phones and posted them online for the world to see...are they journalists?
I say yes, and I think they'd agree.
If you disagree, what we have here is a basic impasse. I respect your opinion, but have to disagree.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Let me ask you this: the Occupy activists who filmed acts of police brutality on their phones and posted them online for the world to see...are they journalists?"
They most certainly could be, and the law doesn't automatically exclude them. Who determines what is "meant to inform"?
Is James O'Keefe a "journalist"?
Were Breitbart's tactics "journalism"?
DJ13
(23,671 posts)The same kind of propagandist you're saying Gannon was, right?
Thats why DiFi is full of shit here.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)The government, according to this law.
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.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)it doesn't address my point. You also didn't answer the questions:
Is James O'Keefe a "journalist"?
Were Breitbart's tactics "journalism"?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Gifting the title of journalist to those jackasses protects real journalists who don't have the "privilege" of working for The Machine, i.e. the "mainstream" press. The most important journalism in America right now is being done by people who decide to be journalists and get to it. No fancy job, no J-school diploma, they just go and report. Thanks to the modern printing press that is the internet, they can, and we are all better off for it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Is James O'Keefe a "journalist"?
Were Breitbart's tactics "journalism"?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Twice now I've explained why giving cover to idiots like these assures cover for other citizen journalists. You take the bad with the good, and wind up with waaaaaaaaay more good than bad.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Twice now I've explained why giving cover to idiots like these assures cover for other citizen journalists. You take the bad with the good, and wind up with waaaaaaaaay more good than bad."
I don't believe Jame's O'Keefe is in anyway a journalist, and rejecting his distortions has no bearing on "other citizen journalists."
In response to the question: Is anyone who puts anything in writing that is read by others a journalist and the press?
...you said, "If what they are putting into writing is meant to inform, yes."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023705947#post67
O'Keefe's goal isn't to "inform," it's to mislead.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)you're arguing for a government-controlled restriction of who does and does not get the title?
I think the baby just departed with the bathwater.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)So technically, I guess.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)I know where this putrid stupidity is going.
I looked at this this morning in response to another thread:
Notice they're in the same clause, and that speech comes first. Jeff Gannon was, first, a citizen with free speech. Guess what? Can't be abridged, and if you take their listing at face value, his right to speech takes precedence over a journalist's. Which means that law defining a journalist has even less force and is even more absurd than you think.
To be specific, Snowden might have committed a crime doing what he did (the First Amendment covers only the government, not any specific employer, and employers do have the right to restrict what you can put out there), but anyone taking the information that he took with him, anyone, at all, Greenwald, Poitras, or me, and posting it to any website or publishing it in a newspaper, can't be touched. At least if you take the First Amendment seriously, which unfortunately our courts don't seem to these days. That doesn't make the restrictions being put on speech any less wrong, though. They are, have been, and will always be, flat wrong.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yes it does matter, and you're making a case for free speech, not journalism or the press.
Who or what is the "press"? Some are invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history.
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.
Again you can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)It doesn't. It makes no legal difference at all. Make your point, if you have one.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It doesn't. It makes no legal difference at all. Make your point, if you have one."
...you're simply dismissing the point.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)because the plain text in the First Amendment contradicts whatever stupid crap you came up with.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wrt writing his opinions as he should and every other American.
The people can determine whether what he has to say is worth anything.
I hope that answers the question that is intended to extract a 'no' later to be used to try to defend the Government defining who is or who is not a journalist.
Rush Limbaugh, Gannon, Hannity, O'Reilly, all are protected by the 1st Amendment as they should be. Anyone who disagrees with that is walking down a very rocky road regarding their own views of who a journalist is.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)wrt writing his opinions as he should and every other American.
The people can determine whether what he has to say is worth anything.
Rush Limbaugh, Gannon, Hannity, O'Reilly, all are protected by the 1st Amendment as they should be. Anyone who disagrees with that is walking down a very rocky road regarding their own views of who a journalist is.
...you are addressing "freedom of speech," not what constitutes "the press."
Freedom of the speech is inherent to a free press. Still, an individual's right to free speech doesn't mean the person is automatically the press or a journalist.
Who or what is the "press"? Some are invoking the First Amendment/Constitution without any understanding of it or history.
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.
Again you can say anything, put it in writing, but it doesn't mean you're a journalist or the press.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)if you actually can read.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the mind.
The other side would like to 'define journalism' also. Fortunately the FFs understood that and were very clear about the protection of those who write their opinions.
YOU are now trying to 'define journalism' with this very question. That is so, very dangerous I don't know where to begin.
And the 'other side' will do the same thing, with people like Rachel Maddow. Two sided of the same coin.
That is why I will defend even a creep like Hannity because we need a general standard that CANNOT BE partisan or we lose this Democracy.
DiFi's bill is an outrage against the Freedom of the Press.
Disagree with someone if you wish, but never, EVER allow the Government to shut them up.
Unbelievable what I am seeing on this forum over the past few years. Jefferson was so right about the dangers of partisanship.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The other side would like to 'define journalism' also. Fortunately the FFs understood that and were very clear about the protection of those who write their opinions.
YOU are now trying to 'define journalism' with this very question. That is so, very dangerous I don't know where to begin.
...is deflection. I mean, this has nothing to do with "the other side."
The question has been met with 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:
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. [/div
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.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a 'journalist'? Was Jefferson? THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENTS that are the basis and foundation of this country. They wrote pamphlets, nailed declarations to trees and doors, Ben Franklin was his day's version of a BLOGGER, using a pseudonym.
They didn't use any words to define themselves, they wrote, the reported news, they wrote documents that established the law of the new nation they helped to found.
And then they wrote an Amendment making their writing LEGAL and PROTECTED, because until then, a certain King had not considered them 'protected' for their writings.
The founders who wrote the Law of the Land which the SC bases all of its decisions on, were not concerned with 'labels' for those who write. They wanted ALL OF THEM protected.
What you are proposing, to pick and choose who is protected regarding what they write, if it ever were to come to pass, would end this democracy.
Is Rachel Maddow a journalist protected by the 1st Amendment??
Should she be subject to punishment for her 'journalism'? Because if you think that Hannity et al, then you can be sure anyone outside the Corporate Media WILL BE. So dangerous, I don't know what to say anymore.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Where do you think the word came from? Was Ben Franklin a 'journalist'? Was Jefferson? THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENTS that are the basis and foundation of this country. They wrote pamphlets, nailed declarations to trees and doors, Ben Franklin was his day's version of a BLOGGER, using a pseudonym. "
Are you comparing Jeff Gannon to Ben Franklin and Jefferson?
Were they disseminating propaganda and intending to mislead?
Is James O'Keefe today's "version" of Ben Franklin?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Am I comparing Jeff Gannon to Ben Franklin??
That is an easy question to answer, which begs the question, 'why did you even ask the question in the first place'?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Disagree. That's exactly what it means. I'd add the caveat for "for public dissemination" but other than that...yeah, that's what it means.
If you go to work tomorrow, discover your employer is doing something illicit and come to DU even and write about it...you're a journalist. If you write about it on your blog...journalist. If you report a slant piece based on facts on Fox News...still a journalist. Do it for money...journalist. Do it for no pay...journalist. Write about it and are published in the WaPo...no more or less of a journalist.
A writer writes. It's the first thing I teach when I teach a writing class.
Perhaps the second needs to be--A journalist writes to inform other people. (And that's the only criteria.)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If you go to work tomorrow, discover your employer is doing something illicit and come to DU even and write about it...you're a journalist. If you write about it on your blog...journalist. If you report a slant piece based on facts on Fox News...still a journalist. Do it for money...journalist. Do it for no pay...journalist. Write about it and are published in the WaPo...no more or less of a journalist. "
....Michele Catalano (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023389805), journalist?
Again, 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 funny thing about this debate is that some believe that no protection is best. The fact is that no protection is exactly what applies to every citizen.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
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:
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
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Sorry.
Just doing my part as a "Left Wingnut".
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)What are your standards? Do you believe this bill is being put out there for the good of the American people? How happy will you be when it comes time for the Republicans to decide who gets press passes and who doesn't?
Do you not see the problem here? Seriously?
And BTW Jerry "Jeff" Gannon was made to look like the fool he was. He was excoriated and we never heard another word from him again. Are you saying this isn't enough?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)journalist?
The idea of establishing a criteria that says only those part of respectable establishment are journalist or only those who are in approximate with one's own politics are journalist - is pure, simple authoritarianism
Warpy
(110,900 posts)rather than ask genuine questions to find out what was really going on.
He was, at best, a paid propagandist.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)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.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)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:
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.
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:
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.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)to large degree - cooking up a bunch of crass sophistry to justify empowering the state's ability to inhibit access to information is an assault on liberty to the extreme
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)"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."
Now ... is that sloppy writing... OR WHAT ? ! ? ! (It doesn't even make clear who gets the protections)
Without a definition, why . . . . . just ANYONE might think they could operate a "press", and be protected!!!
And, now that we think about it, without a definition of maybe just about anyone might get the idea that just anyone could be a "speaker", or an "assembler", or a "petitioner"!!!
We need some more definitions!!!
Without definitions of who gets to be a legitimate "speaker-person", or a legitimate "press-person", or a legitimate "assembler-person", or a legitimate "petitioner-person", why ...... anarchy (or something) might break out!!!
Why, heavens....... without definitions you might even see some lefty lawyer try to twist around the First Amendment and pretend the founders intended that "no law abridging the freedom of the press" means that the government can't authorize the legitimate press, and suppress the illegitimate!!!! My God, what more blasphemies could they think up??????
But I'm sure feeling safer now that we have some responsible, security minded Senators who can correct the sloppy mistakes of those loosey-goosey founders, who didn't even take the time to realize they hadn't put in the proper qualifying definitions for exactly which Americans are legitimately entitled to freedom of the press, and which Americans are illegitimate pretenders!!!
(Where the hell did that satire smilie go??)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)Glad to see the improvements made, and that Feinstein's definition was rejected.
TheKentuckian
(24,940 posts)Why are we getting bogged down on this, when one would only be shielded in areas directly related to their reporting anyway (whatever form that takes)? What is logically all the hubbub? This could only be to allow a precedent to define who is the press and who isn't rather than protections for journalists. The idea is clearly to make sure some folks are cut off from the herd rather than protecting anybody at all.
The shield law is needed, the definitions are not and cannot be constitutional. It is restriction by control of definition of not what but WHO and there is the hitch.
Want a "meaningful debate" then come back with a criteria based on what is being done rather than who is doing it and we can have that talk but there is nothing meaningful to debate when asserting such power as good ole DiFi has here and the committee by extension.
The fact that the criteria is not about what happens but who is doing means automatic chicanery.
There are many more bloggers that give more insightful and informative reporting than the likes of Wolf Blitzer or Chuck Todd, the argument reduces to absurdity instantly as soon as many or even most of who would most definitely be protected are filtered through the simple lens of do they inform, provide factual context, fact find, or ferret out truth that the powerful wish to keep hidden?
Corporate propaganda, distraction, and partisan pundantry are shielded. Anyone else can tell their story to a judge and see what happens.
I understand the "Holy shit! We have to get some kind of protections in place for journalists!" idea but I don't accept any cure need to be this inherently dangerous in an era of media consolidation and dereliction of duty. Little in the way of real news comes from the protected class here, not to say they shouldn't also be protected but they are of secondary concern at this point until some little folk have done the work in a lot of cases.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)James Dale Guckert is a different subject.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If you report something on the web, are you absolutely required to name yourself, your source and how you came about said information?
Because somehow, I think there are a LOT of people that will be very unhappy with that requirement. I mean hell, if Fox News is allowed to lie to people, I don't see why any Joe Blow isn't allowed to say whatever in the hell they want to say and still be labeled a journalist.
Because that is what you are saying - an organization that has the right to lie to people in the mass media has more credentials than people that tell the truth.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The fact is that the Constitution doesn't define or protect journalists. It protects freedom of speech.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)See, when people have the right to LIE to the American public in the mass media, protect the sources of said lies and enjoy protection TO lie and distort, then people telling the truth deserve the same protections, and I don't care if they have an audience of two people.
If you get the blessing to lie with protection, then everyone else gets the blessing to tell the truth with protection even if you don't agree with what they have to say.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Please elaborate how the integrity of Fox News is suddenly far more sound than an independent reporter that cites their reputation and sources that they can cite, yet not be considered a journalist.
You can't have it both ways.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Yes, it is
Please elaborate how the integrity of Fox News is suddenly far more sound than an independent reporter that cites their reputation and sources that they can cite, yet not be considered a journalist.
You can't have it both ways."
...you appear to want to have a discussion that has nothing to do with my point. I said nothing about the "integrity of Fox News."
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I realize you are in between a rock and a hard place, wanting to support anything a Democrat comes up with, and considering the damage WikiLeaks and Snowden did to the USA's reputation. The fact is, though, that you cannot argue that Fox "News" is allow to create and invent news while saying that an ordinary American cannot release information to the general public.
You cannot have it both ways. I realize it sounds like a good idea in passing, but it is a legal landmine full of lots of people lodging lawsuits and winning big on taxpayer dollars.
But hey, to quote someone you respect quite a bit, proceed Governor.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You cannot have it both ways. I realize it sounds like a good idea in passing, but it is a legal landmine full of lots of people lodging lawsuits and winning big on taxpayer dollars. "
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 funny thing about this debate is that some believe that no protection is best. The fact is that no protection is exactly what applies to every citizen.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
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:
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
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and like I said, if you want to ride this horse over a cliff, I won't stand in the way of you getting a saddle.
I'll probably point it out occasionally how it failed absolutely miserably, though, because it has about as much chance of passing as Dick Cheney has of winning a marathon.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I think I have a far better argument than you do and like I said, if you want to ride this horse over a cliff, I won't stand in the way of you getting a saddle."
...of course you do. I'm sure those arguing to kill the bill believe thay have a "far better argument" that these groups.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013.
Our statement: We are pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee passed this bill. It goes a long way toward ensuring that reporters will be protected from subpoenas for their confidential information and sources. It's not a perfect bill, but it tries to cover a broad array of reporters. While it is not as inclusive as we would like, it is not nearly as limited in that area as previous attempts at a federal shield law have been. It still is important that we work with Congress and the administration to make sure journalists' records are not scooped up in broad surveillance programs, and that Justice Department attorneys respect the rights of reporters, but today's action is a significant step in the right direction.
<...>
http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-statement-shield-bill
By Gabe Rottman
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday took up a federal reporter shield law for the second time this year, after getting caught up back in July over the definition of a journalist. This time around, however, the committee passed it, marking the first time a shield bill has moved since 2009, when momentum behind a very similar measure died an unfortunate death after the Wikileaks affair. Despite some flaws, it's on balance a positive step toward greater press freedom and government transparency.
The recent revelations that the Justice Department has aggressively investigated members of the news media in several high-profile leaks inquiries have breathed new life into the measure, which would add federal protections on top of the 49 states that already "shield" reporters from having to disclose their sources and work product.
<...>
The biggest change between this bill and S. 448, which died in 2009, is who's covered by the legislation. In 2009 (prior to Wikileaks being a thing), the bill had a narrow-ish definition of journalist, skewed to the legacy media, but still possibly inclusive of professional bloggers, citizen reporters, and other new media types.
<...>
But, the new bill, while adopting the crabbed Feinstein definition, also has a safety valve that may, depending on how it's implemented, end up being quite positive. It would allow a judge discretion to expand the scope of the act to anyone if the judge determines it "would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."
- more -
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/senate-finally-frees-press-kind
Its time to raise the shield. Now! Congress is considering the Free Flow of Information Act a federal shield law. We need to let our U.S. senators know how important this legislation is for society. You can help! Email or call your two senators (info below), and then let us know that you did. We will update the shield map and continue to spread the word. Act now!
- more -
http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp
Updated to add:
Senate Revises Media Shield Law for the Better, But Its Still Imperfect
The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a new version of the proposed media shield law, forging a compromise on who should be protected from having to reveal their journalistic sources in court. The amended bill, which is now clear to go for a full vote in the Senate, avoids defining who is a journalist. Moreover, it would allow judges the discretion to apply the protection to any person who, in the interest of justice, should be considered a practicing journalist.
The bill is far from perfect, but the new compromise opens the door to non-mainstream journalists, as well as new forms of journalism that may develop in the future.
The Long and Winding Road to a Federal Reporters Privilege Statute
The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987) would create protection for newsgatherers who are served with subpoenas or other court orders seeking unpublished information obtained during the course of their newsgathering.
Currently, 40 states have shield laws that provide protections against subpoenas and orders issued by state courts, but there is no statutory protection against subpoenas and other orders issued by federal courts. Instead, newsgatherers have had to rely on a reporters privilege, interpreted by many federal courts as deriving from the First Amendment. Yet few courts apply it to block grand jury subpoenas, which are especially common, and the vitality of the constitutional privilege as a whole has recently been called into doubt. Indeed, a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to apply it at all.
There is no question that a federal shield law is needed. However, as with all shield laws, the law must define which persons can claim its protections.
- more -
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/senate-revises-media-shield-law-better-its-still-imperfect
Fact: No protection means no protection for anyone, and we all have free speech protection with or without the shield law.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm still going to occasionally remind you that you supported such garbage.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'm still going to occasionally remind you that you supported such garbage."
I support a law that will protect journalists. You don't. Simple as that.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that limits whom is defined as a journalist, simple as that.
Wolf Frankula
(3,595 posts)Wolf
dawg
(10,610 posts)If we allow *anyone* to start picking and choosing who is and who isn't a journalist, then we are allowing that person (or entity) to place their own limits on freedom of the press.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)In other words, no.....
Caretha
(2,737 posts)You left an option out, so I'll just insert it here for those who feel there isn't a button to push on your poll
Is Jeff Gannon really ProSense?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Likely because it was stupid?
Caretha
(2,737 posts)never stopped you before
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Beyond that, it was your suggestion so save the projection.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)but absurdity can only be met with absurdity, hence my response to an absurd (stupid) poll.