Today Ian Lind mentioned the Advertiser story about the conference draft of the reporter/blogger shield law. (previous drafts were analyzed here) Lind writes:
Doug White (www.poinography.com) is quoted as worrying about the different standard for independent bloggers, but the bill’s provisions actually seem quite liberal in this regard. A “public interest” standard has been used to separate substantive blogs from personal blogs. I wonder where they’ll put this strange mix of cats, dogs, sunrises, and occasional news? Don’t worry, morning dogs, I won’t expose your confidential tips.
I realize that Ian may have been pondering that question in jest, but, unless the bill has been amended to delete language that both the Senate and the House had previously endorsed, Lind’s “strange mix” would be automatically granted shield protection simply because he is a former reporter for the Star-Bulletin and a current freelancer for the Honolulu Weekly. I don’t have that type of employment history, and that’s why I am not entirely pleased with what I’ve heard about the bill (keeping in mind that the final draft has not been filed).
For whatever editorial reason, the article quotes only the final two sentences of what I had to say. But, since I have my own blog, my full response to DePledge’s request for comment was as follows:
Derrick,
I am assuming that this is the language that will emerge:
The limitation on compellable testimony established by this section may also be claimed by and afforded to any individual who can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the individual has regularly and materially participated in the reporting or publishing of news or information of substantial public interest for the purpose of dissemination to the general public by means of tangible or electronic media; 2) the position of the individual is materially similar or identical to that of a journalist or newscaster, taking into account the method of dissemination; 3) the interest of the individual in protecting the sources and unpublished information described above is materially similar or identical to the interests of the individuals described in section (a); and 4) the public interest is served by affording the protections of this section in the specific circumstance under consideration.
If that is the language, then:
I would be pleased to have a chance to claim the “shield” privilege, yet I am dismayed that I would need to “demonstrate” that I am worthy of protection. Reporters, in contrast, would not need to demonstrate anything other than their present (or past? go figure) employment status, yet simply because I am unaffiliated with the professional/traditional media I would need to seek the government’s ex post facto okay. The SPJ was understandably concerned about the government establishing (even, at one point, by adopting the Society’s Code) standards in order to be considered a journalist afforded the privilege, and that language (as far as I know) is not part of the final draft. Should this bill become law, however, any blogger who grants anonymity to a source in order to report on the actions of the political or economic elite would have to pause and consider if he or she should expect a truly fair opportunity to demonstrate worthiness. “The public interest” is an uncomfortably vague standard and, ultimately, bloggers that fail (in the courts judgment) to meet that standard would be left in the position of either facing contempt or revealing the anonymous source. That double standard is going to have, as the lawyers might say, a chilling effect on my work when compared to yours.
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Aloha,
Doug
So, DePledge, Lind, and all other current and former “pros” (no matter what their medium is) get the shield coverage automatically. People like me would need to be ready to fight for the protection every time I gave a source anonymity. Furthermore, a source considering talking to a blogger like me would have to consider how likely I would be to prevail and, should I lose, whether I would choose to expose the identity of the source or to become a martyr. That’s fair? I don’t think so. It is better than what exists now, however, and a definite advance for the professional journalists.
Maybe I should just write a single freelance story for whatever local rag would publish it, thereby earn my automatic shield protection, and then “retire” and stick with blogging. Sheesh.