Chuck Schumer to Bloggers: “Fuck You”

Jay Rosen first pointed me to the news that Chuck Schumer is aiming to declare all us DFH bloggers non-journalists before the law.

For citizen journalists, the federal shield law front was looking good for a while.  Although the House of Representatives version of the bill, passed in April, only offered a shield to professional bloggers, the Senate version didn’t differentiate between the pros and the amateurs.  So there was hope that amateur journalists might actually, eventually, get its protection.

No longer though.

Sadly, the Senate Judiciary Committee has followed the path of the House and opted to specify that only a "salaried employee . . . or independent contractor" will be able to invoke the shield, reports the Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog.  The amendment, offered by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) of New York, limits the definition of a journalist to one who:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and

(II) that—

(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;

(cc) operates a programming service; or

(dd) operates a news agency or wire service . . . 

This language is in fact more restrictive than its House counterpart, which only limits the shield to those who gather or disseminate news "for a substantial portion of [their] livelihood or for substantial financial gain."  The Judiciary Committee’s "salaried employee . . . or independent contractor" language on its own would be sufficient to deprive most non-traditional journalists of protection.  But the requirement that the hosting entity both disseminate information by electronic means and operate a publishing, broadcasting, or news service of some kind ices it.

So to be a journalist in Chuck Schumer’s eyes, you have to both have a boss (at this point, you generous readers and Jane would count as my boss, but Jane doesn’t have a boss, for example) and that boss’ company must disseminate news on some other medium, in addition to the Toobz. Even free-lance writers or people like IF Stone (in the period when he ran his own newsletter) would be excluded from this definition of journalist.

Now, I’m on the record as a skeptic that this new law is going to work out the way the media thinks. I fear that the national security exemption will mean the law will protect people like Judy Miller mobilizing smears or the Rent-a-Generals spreading propaganda, but not protect Dana Priest or James Risen and their sources.

Still, this move pisses me off because it’s a transparent bid to grant a powerful industry special privileges.

It’s tough to figure which of Schumer’s powerful constituents he’s doing this for. Is it the dying media outlets located in NYC? Is he pushing this stinker for the Administration or DOJ as a way to undercut the power of the blogs? Or is he just listening to the big media lobby in DC?

If you feel like calling to ask, his number is (202) 224-3027.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

111 Responses to Chuck Schumer to Bloggers: “Fuck You”

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @billmon1 Problem is, the recess window is right now, and optics of doing it so fast would be bad. The Noel Canning decision kind of hurts.
7mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @chrisgeidner A nom from the 9th? Yeah, not biting on that.
34mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JohnPlatner Note Trump's protectionist message should work great in MI, too, which is not only open but w/strong tradition of cross-over
36mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @rwzh_ @nytimes Hey, I saw her here not that long ago. But current is all Harvard/Yale.
36mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JohnPlatner No need to delete. I think NV is closed, but permits same day reg, as well, btw.
37mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MikeDrewWhat One possibility is that she believed she WOULDN'T be replaced w/almost self by Obama. Soto's great, but Kagan =/= RBG.
41mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @imraansiddiqi It's cause he used a real gun rather than a fake FBI bomb.
42mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel @yeselson @tomwatson A chance, decent, dunno yet. But third factor is Obama would likely kill to have a third Justice in legacy.
43mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel @yeselson @tomwatson Eegads, Skeletor Chertoff is on mah TeeVee!
45mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @yeselson Nominee has a decent chance to get lame duck confirmed. @tomwatson @bmaz
46mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @yeselson @tomwatson But if they don't will get someone far less moderate and acceptable in their eyes. But, yeah, don't disagree.
48mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MikeDrewWhat But you don't know her reasons so how can you judge? Do you know inside workings of court? Convos w/Obama? @bungdan
48mreplyretweetfavorite
September 2009
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930