The legislature has passed a "reporter shield bill":
Journalists who refuse to reveal confidential sources would have greater protection in a measure the House approved Monday, and Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign it.The actual language defines protected news media as:The bill would protect people who are in the business of gathering news, but not bloggers or university professors who do not make a majority of their living doing so.
any entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any meansMy, own, ahem, confidential sources on the legislative staff tell me that the Senate rewrote the House's definition of media with the intent of excluding bloggers. That's a regrettable move which smacks of both limiting dissenting voices and protecting a dying business model in the face of robust competition. But I don't see how Sound Politics cannot still be protected under the new definition. The site generates regular revenue from ads and tips and pays state business taxes on that revenue. We regularly gather and disseminate news to the public.
And we rely on confidential sources on occasion. For example, if it weren't for confidential tips from election workers, I never would have discovered the hundreds of illegal votes that King County counted in 2004. Those confidential sources came to me because they believed that I would do a better job of following up on their tips than would my colleagues in more traditional media businesses. And indeed, I believe I'm still the only reporter who has ever reported that any of these illegal votes were counted.
It's debatable whether "reporter shield laws" are a good idea in the first place. But if such laws exist, they should explicitly extend protection to everybody performing the function of news gathering and dissemination, without any bogus ill-defined "regular business" test. In the meantime, I will continue to rely on confidential sources for my regular news gathering, as needed. And if this ever becomes an issue, I dare any prosecutor to argue with a straight face that I'm not in the regular business of gathering and disseminating news.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 17, 2007 12:18 PM | Email ThisAnd by focusing the legislation carefully to cover only the old media, is this really to protect journalists, or simply to give immunity to liberal journalists that dominate the old media? "Unnamed confidential sources" will become "imaginary confidential sources" and the left will have the means to report any angle on any issue they wish to promote.
Some would say honest journalism in the old media is dying. Others would say it's been long-dead. But giving the old media carte blanche to report anything they wish and cite imaginary sources is the recipe for disaster.
Posted by: MJC on April 17, 2007 12:20 PMHey you stinking commie. Do you go out of your way to be nasty or does it just come naturally?
You have no ideas, all you have is bullshit rhetoric that we've all heard many, many times.
If this site angers you so much maybe you should stay away.
Posted by: REBEL on April 17, 2007 12:37 PMAs much as I admire and support your valuable work here on SP, I must disagree with this:
"A future version of the bill should explicitly extend protection to anybody engaged in news gathering and dissemination"
Simply put, I'm not in favor of anything that creates a priveledged "media" class. If it's good enough for the Times and PI, yes, it's good enough for bloggers--but also good enough for Joe Public.
Posted by: Kirk Parker on April 17, 2007 12:47 PMAs for Mainstream Journalism, yeah, it's dying big time. Their won't be enough advertising revenue in that media as more generations grow up with other sources. And why should new even cost any money? There's very little value add in reporting facts. Anyone can and should be able to do so. Mainstream Media journalists want on the one hand, to be members of the commentariate, and on the other to be ragarded as unbiased observers. And that's the problem.
Bloggers do a far better job.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 17, 2007 12:52 PMWashington's jobless rate hits a low
By Drew DeSilver
Seattle Times business reporter
Unemployment in Washington hit its lowest level in more than 30 years last month, as the state's continued strong economy drew thousands more people into the workforce.
With the state jobless rate falling to 4.6 percent in March, "this is the best time to be looking for work," said Evelina Tainer, the state's chief labor economist. "Overall, the economy is doing great."
I'll bet that the Horsesass kissers won't "blame Bush" for the state of the economy!!
Posted by: John425 on April 17, 2007 01:02 PMIt's not that I don't like what I read here, I just don't agree with most of what you say. =)
Like Howard Stern?
Yep. Sounds like a slippery slope, for sure.
Posted by: Rey Smith on April 17, 2007 01:59 PMState Law won't protect your privileged communication status in a federal court! Bring a lot of books...especially the one titled "I Fought the Law and the Law Won!" (Oh! that's a record isn't it? No matter. Enjoy the view.)
Posted by: Doug on April 18, 2007 01:53 PM