In the OPINION section of the Los Angeles Times, an attorney - Scott Gant - penned an article on the issues surrounding a proposed Federal "Shield" law geared towards protecting Journalists, their work product, and subsequent sources.
Mr. Gant noted that the Bush administration opposes the measure on the grounds that it would weaken law enforcement efforts and jeopardize National Security.
Baloney!
Currently, any reporter or news organization that refuses to cough up documents and information on the heels of a subpoena, may be fined, held in contempt of court, or tossed into jail.
Mr. Gant posed an intriguing question.
Who would fall under the protection of such a Statute?
The Washington legal eagle mused that by virtue of a proliferation of - bloggers, podcasters, and a myriad of fawning news outlets on the World-Wide-Web - that lawmakers would have to take a "stand".
To date, the House has defined Journalism as:
"The gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, 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."
Understandably, under current thinking on the "Hill", due protections would be extended to those who "practise" journalism regularly and for a "substantial portion of the person's livelihood for substantial gain".
Would those who sell "gossip" be included?
Indeed - should the shield law be limited to so-called "professionals" - or be more inclusive to reflect a broader view of Journalism in the Internet age?
From there Gant took a giant leap and boldly asserted:
"The line distinguishing professional journalists from others who disseminate information, ideas, and opinions to a wide audience has been blurred."
He summed up by concluding:
"We're all capable of being Journalists now."
On the contrary!
Documentarians, perhaps. Journalists, no.
In my view - the distinction between a Journalist and one who "documents" and/or disseminates information - is crystal clear!
Journalists check their sources, for instance. And, verify their facts. Also, they endeavour to present a level playing field where both sides of the issues may be argued so the reportage is ultimately unbiased and balanced.
To quote the Detective from the old Dragnet series:
"Just the facts, man."
Notwithstanding, it should be noted that Journalists usually attend a College or specialized "learning institution" to "be educated" about - well, let's see - silly little concepts like ethics, rules of professional conduct, and standards in Journalism.
Oh yes, there may be a fine line between Journalists and those "others", to some.
To me, it's evident after perusing a few "news bites" on the Internet this morning, just how wide the "divide" is.
I found Mr. Gant's arguments not only self-serving but laughable and naive; in essence, he was reaching!
If anything, he has a skewered slant on things.
To boldly assert that the musings of a few - who dabble in social or political commentary on a personal blog or by podcast - are to be taken as legitimate Journalistic offerings is a ludicrous assertion by any stretch of the imagination.
Sir, there is an old saying:
"Consider the source."
Fortunately, there are a handful of true journalists who still carry the "torch" - and likewise - make every bold-faced effort to shed light in dark corners in a courageous pursuit of the truth.
Gee - maybe that's why we have Awards for outstanding accomplishment in Journalism - do 'ya figure?
Yes, to honor those who exemplify the epitome of standards and ethics in Journalism.
Citizens in the land of the alleged "free" should take every precaution to preserve - what to a handful - may appear to be a lofty ideal fading into oblivion.
Henry Anatole Grunwald once said:
"Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault."
No comments:
Post a Comment