Maybe it’s the same problem I have. I, perhaps, should have used the word “believable”, for the word “credible” always makes me think of “edible” and then I get hungry. 
The issue here is in the context of a proposed US Federal shield law. Currently, there is no federal protection for journalists: they can be pressured to reveal a confidential source and cannot claim that that’s privileged information and thus legally not divulge it. (Think of how a lawyer can claim attorney-client privilege and cannot be made to divulge certain information.) The media have been lobbying for years for such a law to be created, and we are approaching the point where such a law might indeed actually be passed. However, the gummint are concerned that if there isn’t a definition of what a journalist is, then in the limit case anyone can refuse to divulge anything at all to the police because they can claim that (a) that’s confidential source information and (b) they are a journalist and therefore are allowed to keep it secret.
So, this isn’t “the Man is trying to restrict our rights!” This is actually a rare case of the Man being persuaded to extend a new right that we do not currently have, and arguments about whom that right should apply to.
I do not like the idea of only “accredited” journalists having this right to protect sources, because journalism is a thing you do, not a job title. But I can sorta-kinda see the point that those trying to nail down a definition are making.
For the sake of discussion let us remove some presumptions and lay a groundwork for the topic.
Should there be a “shield” for journalist? If so, why? If not, why not?
Yep. Because otherwise nobody will whistleblow, because you tell a journalist, they reveal the story, the Man makes the journalist tell who the whistleblower was, and the whistleblower goes to jail for ever. Alternatively, the Man sends the journalist to jail for not divulging the source, which means that any journalist publishing whistleblower stories has to be prepared to go to prison; that’s what the shield is designed to protect them from.
1 Like
Is there a point that whistleblowing is irresponsible? (again, for sake of discussion)
Also, another issue, (I’m not sure if it’s related though) Wikileaks. Is that journalism? Should something like that be protected?
Maybe the approach here is wrong. Why not set up protections for the source of the information? Somehow set up a system that will protect the identity of the source, even making it anonymous?
Really, what difference does it make if the one reporting is from CNN, a newspaper, a blog or someone making a news channel on Youtube? News is news.
At least partially because if a reporter gets an email saying “I’m the deputy director of GCHQ and I want to reveal that we have placed a key logger in every keyboard in Britain, because I don’t like this programme” then that’s very different from an email saying “GCHQ tap everything we write! I have proof!”. It is possible to anonymously be a whistleblower, even concealing your identity from the reporter you leak to, but it’s a lot harder to build trust that way.
It would give a starting point for investigation. (This way it would also encourage journalists to work instead of relying so much on Wikipedea. 
) I could see that there would need be someway to manage a dialog between source and investigator. A way for the source to say “look in this spot for such evidence” in order for things to be verified. Admittedly, this is a very imperfect idea. But, to have the government decide what a journalist is or isn’t, who deserves protection and who doesn’t, is an uncomfortable thought.
Essentially, no law is perfect. So either there are some people who will claim journalist status in order to get away with bad things, or there are some people who are journalists and want to protect sources but cannot legally do so.
At the moment, everyone is in the latter category.
I am, generally, in favour of enforcing openness even if some people misuse it (abusus non tollit usum) rather than optimising for preventing abuse. But I can see why (and enjoy discussion with) people who feel the other way.
It would be curious to see how any “shield” law would play out in the courts of various countries. I really wouldn’t think it would remain in effect in the USA. The 3rd article of the constitution of the United States is as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I would think that trying to define what a journalist is, and therefore, a journalist having to be accredited or licensed would, in the eyes or the ones challenging such a shield law, would constitute “abridging the freedom of…press”.
It is interesting to note the actual wording here. The US constitution is assumed to protect the ‘freedom of speech.’ But, what it actually says is that, to paraphrase, ‘Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of the freedom of speech.’ Therefore, there are instances in which a person might be held accountable for his ‘speech’, in whatever form that may come.
Also, there is really no ‘freedom of religion’ in that constitution. It just said that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, which, in the time of writing, it was just to make sure that there would be no ‘state religion’ as there is in other countries.
How does this all play out in other counties and their constitutions?