Liz notes that Senator Tom Duane is speaking out about bloggers and journalists in the context of so called "shield laws." She quotes Duane thusly:
"New York has a proud tradition of having one of the strongest reporter's shield laws in the country," Duane said. "I was shocked to discover that in 2008, our law does not provide protections to journalist bloggers - one of the fastest growing mediums for obtaining news. This glaring omission must not be allowed to continue."
I will certainly applaud Senator Duane for recognizing that the law is lacking and need of a revision. The media landscape is changing as people have more and more options for their consumption of information. The new media phenomena is opening up all manner of questions about who is and who isn't a "journalist" and who deserves the protection of the law in the exercise of journalism. But, I would argue, as I did in a comment on Liz's post, that these shield laws should be protecting the act of journalism, the free dissemination of information as opposed to protecting individuals who have been deemed as a class as worthy of protection. Of course, it's certainly not that easy, but the questions raised by this explosion of citizen generated media are complex. I'll leave it to folks who are much smarter than I am to figure it out.
I guess my point is that we probably shouldn't dwell so much on who is worthy of protection by these laws, but what is worthy. I am of the belief that anyone can engage in acts of journalism and I am suspicious of attempts to label this person or that class of people as deserving of protections while others are not. It's the free flow of information and the right of the public to access it that needs protection, not so much those who someone else deems a "journalist" or not a "journalist."
Your thoughts? |
