Media protection held up by energy bill

Proponents of the media shield law will have to wait a little longer to realize national protection against having to divulge their sources. While not defeating the bi-partisan measure, they failed to act on it and it therefore might appear during the fall session. Supposedly they failed to act because they wanted to focus on the energy bill. Hmm. We'll see if anything gets done with that either.

The more probable scenario is it will be reintroduced after the election, since the Bush administration has posted numerous letters from congressional personnel objecting to the bill on its Department of Justice Office Of Public Affairs site. Of course, everything is in the interest of national security.

There seems to be some agreement on a substitute version to make it easier for intelligence officers to prosecute leaks of classified information and narrow the definition of journalist.

The version that people are agreeing on, but not voting on, would define journalist to cover only those who gather information with the intention of publishing it-supposedly distinguishing bloggers and freelance journalists who are legitimate from those who aren't. But I'm not sure it wouldn't cover bloggers and freelance journalists. Here are some definitions in the bill:

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person'--

(A) means a person who is engaged in journalism;

(B) includes a supervisor, employer, parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of a person described in subparagraph (A); and ...to complete the whole section would be too long, so I'll just shorten it to say it does not cover terrorists or foreign agents,etc.)


(5) JOURNALISM- The term `journalism' means the regular 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.

Bloggers and freelancers can most certainly qualify under these definitions.

Regardless, federal action should be taken to provide uniform protections and constraints against the press through such a law. Right now, it's up to each state and each judge in each courtroom. That's hard to manage without a Supreme Court ruling. There are too many interpretations, journalists aren't sure which state or local law they could be held under.