Sen. Dick Durbin tells you which parts of the First Amendment apply to you. (cc photo: Center for American Progress Action Fund)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), writing in the Chicago Sun-Times (“It’s Time to Say Who’s a Real Reporter,” 6/26/13), says it’s time to stop letting just anyone call themselves a journalist.
Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.
By this he means, basically, that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press probably don’t apply to you:
Not every blogger, tweeter or Facebook user is a “journalist.” While social media allows tens of millions of people to share information publicly, it does not entitle them to special legal protections to ignore requests for documents or information from grand juries, judges or other law enforcement personnel.
Otherwise, Durbin suggests, we’ll be in the absurd position of giving First Amendment protection to just anyone:
Is each of Twitter’s 141 million users in the United States a journalist? How about the 164 million Facebook users? What about bloggers, people posting on Instagram, or users of online message boards like Reddit?
To avoid this nightmare scenario, Durbin offers a proposal for a statutory definition of “journalist”:
A journalist gathers information for a media outlet that disseminates the information through a broadly defined “medium”—including newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, magazine, news website, television, radio or motion picture—for public use. This broad definition covers every form of legitimate journalism.
This is not a bad definition, actually—though it doesn’t do what Durbin wants it to do, that is, separate out “legitimate journalism” from what he sees as the illegitimate kind.
In Durbin’s formulation, a “journalist” is someone who 1) gathers information 2) for a media outlet that 3) disseminates the information through a broadly defined medium 4) for public use. I guess we can agree that journalists gather information (though they might also be expressing opinions about information, if they’re opinion journalists). It’s the next part that Durbin intends to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sorry, it looks like only part of the First Amendment applies to you. (cc photo: Gates Foundation)
But Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and even Instagram are all, guess what, media outlets—that is, institutions whose primary purpose is to distribute information to the public. (Their names appear in bold in FAIR materials because we bold the names of media outlets.)
They disseminate information gathered by their users; the medium they use to do so is known collectively as “social media.” The fact that “social media” doesn’t appear in Durbin’s “broadly defined” list of media is irrelevant—Durbin doesn’t present his list as exclusive. (That’s why he says “including.”) It’s hard to think of a definition of “medium” that would exclude Facebook and include, say, nonfiction book publishing—which in the 21st Century can be as hands-off as publishing a social media post (e.g., via Amazon‘s Kindle store).
The final part of Durbin’s definition is that the information is disseminated for public use—which is a simple matter of privacy settings on most social media sites.
So to answer Durbin’s questions about users of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Reddit: Yes, as long as they’re using these outlets to gather information for public use.
What’s at stake here, Durbin points out, is that under state shield laws “a protected journalist cannot be compelled to disclose sources or documents unless a judge determines there is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling public interest.” If a person who posts news on their Facebook page has that protection, surely the republic will survive.
Although I think it’s ridiculous to debate any restrictions of First Amendment protections on Americans – or even Fourth, as a judge determining “an extraordinary circumstance or compelling public interest” for the disclosure of any evidence or testimony should be the standard for every citizen, not just journalists – I’m also ambivalent to the recent trend of “crowdsourcing” the news, using whatever is trending on social media as a valid form of journalism. Journalists, like any profession from medicine to law, require specific skill training including skepticism and criticism, and an ethical grounding that not everyone is automatically equipped with. It doesn’t take much browsing on Facebook before finding some profound contextual perversions of political, historical or scientific realities. (Of course, a pleasant alternative would be to make journalistic critical thinking part of the standard public education curriculum, but good luck with that, considering how “journalism” is now assumed, along with other liberal and fine arts degrees, to be a ticket to unemployment.)
The Bastard Breitbart’s black magic contextual distortions, cynically dishonest “facts don’t matter” method of propaganda, are still the toxic touchstones of the “new media”. Should we respect him as an actual journalist? Or just as an exceptionally poor journalist? Shouldn’t the motives and integrity of the journalist be the ultimate qualifier of the designation? Of course, corporate media has been one of the worst enemies of journalism, sacking the investigative department at CNN or sacking photojournalists at the Sun Times. The assumption that virtually anyone is qualified to fill these important roles is one more indignity for real journalists to endure.
Senator Durtbin wants to protect us from the shame of knowing the crimes committed by our government, by requiring a license restricting the journalists that are allowed to cover the government.
Another step toward the Dirtbin of history in the name of democracy.
Russia tried that and failed, but maybe the Russian people are smarter than Americans.
You can always expect Sen. Durbin, who I’ve watched closely over the years as a resident of Illinois, to come up with the most cynical laws and present them Enlightened principles…so this in no way surprises me. Durbin enjoys the relationship power has with “professional” journalists and despises the dangers to power the Internet represents in decentralizing “journalism”. It’s that simple…so he tries to appeal to the “professionals” by stroking their egos to get support for what would ultimately be a much more draconian definition by the time it would be voted upon representing his real desire to crush independent thinking and sharing of ideas that might show the he and his colleagues of “professional” politicians are secure from political challenges. Next he will float the idea of defining who can be a “professional” politician. It wouldn’t surprise me.
Of course, journalism is defined every day by who is and isn’t issued press credentials.
And I imagine Durbin’s copasetic with the vast majority of those decisions.
The question is
Should we be?
I wonder if Senator Durbin would be so kind as to provide a list of people he thinks of as real journalists. It would be an excellent resource for knowing who’s not worth paying attention to.
I could go either way on this issue. Certainly social media users can distribute news, so in a sense they can be considered journalists. I don’t have a prima facie problem with this. Though, I do personally think that it diminishes Journalism (capital “J”) as a profession. If you could be a journalist simply by being at events and hitting “tweet” (which is useful, don’t get me wrong), then what’s the point of journalism degrees?
I highly encourage the use of social media by citizens to disseminate news, absolutely, and I think they should be protected in doing so. But I do have to agree, not everything everyone posts on Twitter or Facebook should be considered journalism. I want to be a journalist, but I don’t consider myself a journalist for talking about current events.
I guess you could say I’m torn between both sides.
Asked the Treasury Dept. for permission to travel to Cuba in 1991 to study neighborhood-based health care. I have a degree in journalism but was told I had to be on assignment from a publication and could not go as a freelance journalist. So I made arrangements and went anyway. I was open and public about my trip and returned to Miami without being arrested for not having Treasury Dept. permission.
A truly sorry idea by my Senator–I’ve been noticing a slow decline in his abilities, and perhaps he’s been in Washington too long. Certainly being at the elbow of Harry Reid all these years hasn’t done him any good. His recommendations above are preposterous. I wish he would have just come out and said the magic name “Glenn Greenwald.” and gotten it over with. Maybe Dick can get a new bill up and running, called the “Greenwald Exception,” that prevents journalists from pissing off and embarrassing Presidents and Congressmen and their Corporate employers.
The right of public free speech can not depend on who is doing the talking. Who is a journalist is politically but not legally relevant to the question of who can get away with divulging and disseminating state secrets. We are better off with our fourth estate feeling fearful of government than feeling a comfortable with it. Further explaination: http://bit.ly/13sw57m
Durbin is a jerk, fake liberal
FYI, no need to publish this comment, as a blog commenting journalist and wannabe editor, see this sentence: “This not a bad definition,” missing “is”…
TO Tim:
You would make Leahy jealous by not naming a ludicrous amendment after him
I’ll never forget when Sen. Durbin was on TV explaining that Iraqis should be grateful for all America had done for it and, moreover, Americans couldn’t be expected to do the heavy lifting of governance anymore and that Iraqis should learn how to govern themselves. I wonder if any member of the Nazi German parliament ever shared the utter depravity of Sen. Durbin and said, “Those Jews should be grateful for all we have done for them – but really, they should learn to take care of their own hygiene – we can’t provide them with free showers forever!”
Otherwise, Durbin suggests, we’ll be in the absurd position of giving First Amendment protection to just anyone: – the Article
And here is a News Flash for Senator Durbin; the First amendment is supposed to be given to everyone. Did he maybe miss that part in Social Studies class.
I wonder if any member of the Nazi German parliament ever shared the utter depravity of Sen. Durbin -Estaban
No, the NAZI’s at least had some ethics.
Bet on it.
Calling Sen Jim Durban a Nazi, and comparing his words to those said to the jews to be eradicated is realllllllllly pushing the incredulity button.Although I am impressed FAIR people are saying it about a Dem.Of course you are speaking complete bunk