What does it mean to be a journalist? The answer largely depends on who you ask.
Most people would agree that the hosts of prime-time news shows and reporters for the thousands of daily and student newspapers in the U.S. are journalists, but what about people who make YouTube videos? Are they journalists too?
These questions are central to the debate over legislation currently being considered by Congress. The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 was written in response to recent revelations that the Justice Department secretly collected the phone records of Associated Press reporters. The bill does contain some elements of merit, such as codifying reporters’ privilege, which lets them protect confidential sources against federal inquiry. Currently, that right is protected by a patchwork of state laws.
However, this is a very dangerous proposal for a variety of reasons. Because it creates a legal definition of who is and isn’t a journalist, it prevents many amateur journalists from being afforded the same protections as their more well-established peers. Amateur journalists need and deserve these protections, as they play a vital role in informing the public and cover stories that professionals often overlook or simply choose not to cover.
Even professional journalists, such as Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, wouldn’t meet the criteria. This is because publishing primary-source documents, as Greenwald did with Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency surveillance leaks, would be left unprotected by the legislation. This is a major flaw because that information is vital for influencing change and sparking public debate.
Because of the crucial role that journalism plays in holding people and the government accountable, it should be encouraged and protected from prosecution — within reason, of course.
Unfortunately, this proposed legislation does the opposite. In a world where technology is empowering more and more people to share information, communicate with others and express their views, limiting who is protected is a dangerous and counterproductive policy to the free flow of knowledge that society so greatly benefits from.