A research report published by Free Press in October of 2013 argues that limiting a shield law to professional journalists ignores the realities of new technology that puts the tools of reporting into the hands of ordinary citizens. In his report Josh Stearns cites a number of instances of people committing acts of journalism including 19-year-old Karina Vargas who recorded the Oscar Grant shooting in the Fruitvale station in Oakland, California and then refused to give the camera to officers. CBS broadcast the footage and it was later used in court.
The Senate shield bill introduced by Dianne Feinstein would not protect citizens performing spontaneous acts of reporting. (paidContent, October 21, 2013, by Mathew Ingram)
Two scholars Jonathan Peters and Edson C. Tandoc, Jr. studied sources that conceptualized a journalist and came up with a common definition of a journalist: “A journalist is someone employed to regularly engage in gathering, processing, and disseminating (activities) news and information (output) to serve the public interest (social role).” The scholars found the definition “unwise” by excluding capable journalists not employed and others fulfilling the need for news and by “de-incentiviz[ing] innovation in news production and distribution…” (MediaShift, October 22, 2013, by Jonathan Peters and Edson C. Tandoc, Jr.)
Editor’s Note: In editing this post, I am thinking about my own stint as a journalist, working 9 years for the nonprofit Pacific News Service/New America Media. Since I was a retired journalism teacher and taking retirement, I worked for nothing but published a number of stories on the website, some of which were picked up by news outlets across the country. I should think, in spite of my lack of employment, I would have qualified for federal shield had the law been in place. db