What Is a Journalist?

by Gerard Emershaw

In the wake of several scandals involving the Obama administration's attacks on the media, the Senate is attempting to develop a shield law that would protect journalists from having to comply with subpoenas or court orders requiring them to reveal sources or confidential information unless a judge determines there is reason to believe that a crime has occurred and the government has exhausted all other alternatives. Unlike most of what passes for legislation these days, this sounds promising. There is only one problem—lawmakers cannot agree on the definition of 'journalist.' 

Some Senators like California's Dianne Feinstein—wish to exclude organizations such as WikiLeaks from any protection. Others—like New York's Charles Schumer—wish to ensure that bloggers and other non-compensated news content providers of the internet age are protected by the legislation. 

So, what exactly is a journalist? 

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. It states: "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." 

Congress cannot abridge the freedom of the press. But what is "the press?"

Merriam-Webster defines 'press' as "news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters." It defines 'news' as "previously unknown information." It defines 'journalist' as "a person engaged in journalism; especially: a writer or editor for a news medium." It defines 'journalism' as "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media." It defines 'media' as "a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment." 

Nothing in the typical dictionary definitions associated with journalism and the press necessitates working for the mainstream corporate media or being compensated at all. If working for the mainstream corporate media was a necessary condition for being a journalist, then expressions such as "alternative media" and "independent journalist" would be meaningless. However, both expressions are completely meaningful. If being paid for one's work in the field of journalism was a necessary condition for being a journalist, then the expression "professional journalist" would be redundant. However, that expression can and does provide information. 

For better or worse, the paradigm of journalist is changing. Newspapers and magazines are disappearing. The network nightly newscasts have shrinking audiences. CNN and MSNBC are losing viewers, and even the dominant Fox News Channel is not significantly growing in viewership. The new journalistic paradigm is the social media—the blogosphere, Twitter, Facebook, etc. The internet allows the social media to report breaking news in real time—long before even television news channels can report. Obviously, any revolution like the internet news revolution will produce many dubious sources. However, there is nothing wrong with a free market in news. Sources that are found to be reputable will gain readers/viewers while those which are widely found to be dubious will eventually fade away. More speech is always better than less. 

Legislators who fear and loathe the people and the growing journalistic opportunities that the new social media gives them are advised to look to American history. Would those like Senator Feinstein wish to claim that the pamphleteers of the American Revolution such as John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine were not journalists? Would they claim that the Founders did not wish to include individuals such as these under the rubric of "the press?" Would they claim that the Authors of the Constitution intended to provide no First Amendment protection for individuals like these? 

Lawyer John Dickinson published the pamphlet Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania which served to unite the Colonists against the taxation without representation created by the Townshend Acts. Samuel Adams published the pamphlet The Rights of the Colonists which helped to spread the idea of natural rights in the Colonies, setting the stage for the Declaration of Independence four years later. Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense sold more than 120,000 copies in three months and spread the ideas of the Revolution like wildfire. Without the contributions of these three Patriots, the Americans may not have won their freedom from the British Crown. 

Dickinson was a lawyer. Adams was a businessman and politician. Paine was a former British civil servant, school teacher, and failed businessman. None of these pamphleteers worked for any formal news service. Does that fact make them any less journalists? Does that fact make them and their writings any less worthy of protection under the First Amendment? If Congress opts to provide protections only to journalists who work for major media corporations at a time when a small number of large corporations control more and more of the media pie, then corporatism will have finally triumphed in the United States. If the pamphleteers of the Revolution were journalists, then so are the bloggers of today. If it was good for the pamphleteers to expose the tyranny of the British Crown, then it is also good for organizations like WikiLeaks to expose the tyranny of the American federal government and military.