Yes Indeed, I am a Journalist. Why Do You Ask?

Scott Gant writes favorably in WaPo of potential federal legislation shielding “journalists” and granting them certain privileges of non-disclosure.

The most interesting feature of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 is its broad definition of a journalist: Per Gant, “[t]he bill's safeguards apply to anyone engaged in ‘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.’ " This differs from prior proposals which limited the definition of journalist to professionals engaged by established news organizations.

Gant: “As journalism returns to its status as an activity rather than a profession, it is appropriate to rethink what it means, and consider carefully how non-traditional journalists should be treated compared to those who work for established news organizations.”

Gant has nailed it. Journalism is an activity, and it benefits in my opinion from its being snatched from professionals and dispersed throughout the internet. The amateurs and upstarts have done a much better job than the pros in the last few years.

Professionalization of any activity benefits only the insiders in the guild. The activity becomes less creative, less valuable to consumers, and more expensive. The example of journalism’s morphing into court stenography and its being salvaged by amateurs on the internet demonstrates what good things might happen if other activities were de-professionalized.

Will the broad definition of journalist make it into the final bill? If not, the whole thing should be scuttled. If Congress wants to reprofessionalize journalism and favor the lap dog media, one of the best ways to do this is to grant special privileges to the pros and establish credentialing criteria that cuts out the citizen journalist. This would have the effect of stifling the flow of information. It wouldn’t be the first time that a law had an ironic title.