Read through the following article and answer the following questions:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0914/Drudge-hates-new-shield-bill-but-is-defining-journalist-really-fascist
1. What is the big deal about the Senate passing this shield law? Why is it controversial?
2. How far should the government be able to go to "coerce" reporters to reveal sources of information?
3. According to the article, what is ironic about Obama supporting the shield law?
PLEASE REMEMBER TO ADD YOUR NAME TO YOUR COMMENT IF YOU ARE NOT A REGISTERED BLOGGER USER.
Jala Thomas
ReplyDelete1. I think the big deal about this shield law being passed is the fact that it's only allowing protection for some journalists. The fact that being a journalist, can be expressed in so many ways, the government is downing those who are not considered "real reporters". The fact that a "17 year-old blogger" not being able to have the same rights and protection as another joumalist makes it kind of unfair, because this is not allowing those who are considered "unreal" journalists to get credit for their journalism, causing much controversy. I understand that the government is passing this law due to the many leaked blogs, being posted by people who consider themselves journalists, but really, they took someone's information. I personally think, that if its your thoughts, your information, then you should also have freedom of press. It's just like plagiarism. In class, if I create my own story, without copying, I feel like I should get credit for my own information.
2. I feel that the government should pass this law, but allow it to pertain to all journalists, and not just "real journalists. What defines a real journalist? Society could give a million definitions on what a real journalist is. I think the government should just stop trying to enforce it, where it's only pertaining to certain individual journalists. I think they should just allow the "freedom of press" but to also allow the shield law to be all to all journalists.
3. It's ironic that Obama is supporting this law, knowing that all Americans should have equal rights, but its kind of wrong how this law is only pertaining to "real journalists" giving them protection over their journalism. Freedom of Press should be overlooked.
the thing about the senate passing this new shield law is that it targets "real" reporter, journalist and other types of writers with credentials of some kind. it's controversial because it sounds like the government is trying to put a clamp on freedom of the press, but at the same time they are arguing the leak of secret information that could either be published or put in the wrong hands that could cause a national security crisis. there is two sides to both stories. the government can not go too far to harass the reporters to give up their sources; they can either ask the individual, the employer or head of national security to see if it is worth any effort to pursue this person for the information they have. the government should not have to make a law to make reporter spill their beans. this leads to think why is the government so on edge of what Americans are saying about the war or other things in general. why would Obama support a law the has a very thin line from threatening the First amendment and still being legal? the government in a sense just wants a tighter grip on what information is being said by people that know more about foreign or government affairs than the average American. the law still is a step closer to having a little too much government intervention. writer , reporters and journalist that search for the truth, things that the government dose not tell the American people are going hit a brick wall. the way the culture is moving words have a profound effect on a people an no less a country. the boundary of words suppress some thought but not all according to this new law. the government and the president should be careful because the tight you hold on top some thing the more it is easier for it to slip away. this reminds me of a time when I had and Elmo toy that I loved to death but on day I did not want to share and had a fight with my cousin about it and broke it. the same can happen with information. people want to know what is going on. don't hold on too tight because people will find a way to know. what is done in the dark will come to the light. I pray the government will understands that. honest is the best policy for anyone. it may not always what people want to hear but it is truth and people can not destroy what is true. people cab destroy a lie. lies faded away but the truth remains.
ReplyDelete1) This proposal is controversial because it only protects a certain people in the journalism industry. Our first amendment is "freedom of the press," but this shield law wants to only protect the established, experienced "big names," and the day-to-day bloggers and inexperienced journalists might be forced to disclose their sources, thereby losing their First Amendment right.
ReplyDelete2) Currently the "norm" is that the government can make a journalist reveal their source if it is a matter of national security, life or death, or to prevent an act of terrorism. It should stay that way.
3) What is ironic about Obama supporting the shield law is that his administration leaked confidential information, which is one of the reasons why the Senate is wanting to pass this shield law in the first place.
Any shield law should not concern itself with identification, and that is exactly what the Senate is doing. This is why it is controversial and a big deal. If the shield is an extension of the First Amendment, then it should apply to everyone, or no one. If the government gets to define it, writers will feel less free to real reporting. Furthermore, the government should allow reporters to reveal as much of sources of information as they want to. This is simply because it is their job to do so. Also, Obama's support is very ironic. This is because he is the Obama administration is waging war on the First Amendment through Justice Department targeting of journalists.
ReplyDeleteKaty Howard
The big deal about this shield law is that the government is giving itself the authority to determine whether someone is a real journalist or not. Someone can spend their entire life around journalism and then the government can take this away and say that they are not a real journalist simply because the government does not agree with or support the journalist's work. It is also very controversial because Thomas Paine was a very influential person in our history of the American Revolution, and the government is declaring that he is not a "real" journalist. The government has no right to coerce reporters to reveal sources. Out of all the high-technology equipment and highly-trained professionals we have working for our government, the government should not have to find out information from a mere journalists. Even though this law does not directly violate the first amendment, this law indirectly violates it. It is taking away freedom to express yourself through writing unless the government supports your opinion. That has to at least indirectly violate some law or right. It is ironic that Obama agrees with this law because he has been involved in some news stories himself. He has been the victim of many networking sites, such as Twitter, where people create accounts to make fun of and bash him. So even though Obama constantly reiterates that he is for the people, he is passing this law to help himself, along with other government officials who have been the target of journalists.
ReplyDeleteSydney Moore
Bethany Lovell
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the First Amendment: "Free Speech?" What happened to "Free Press?" As Americans, we have a right to say and do what ever we please and the government should never try to restrict that. By passing this shield law, they are restricting the first amendment in every way and this is why it is so controversial. The government is slowly but surely sinking into socialism, and this adds another step. They should never be able to "coerce" the media into saying what they want them to say because we already get that from news stations like CNN and NBC who say what the government wants them too. What is ironic about Obama supporting this law is that he claims to be "a president of the people," but he is trying to squash the very people who are ancestors of patriots like Thomas Paine. Mr. Drudge and others like Rush Limbaugh are merely conservatives who are against what Obama believes in and Obama is trying to stop them from expressing their very opinions which is what this country was built on.
The shield law allows for journalists to protect the identity of their confidential sources. Sounds good right? It is not exactly what it seems to be because they have tried to completely redefine the meaning of being a journalist. According to the law, the word “journalist” would be defined as, “Someone employed by or in contract with a media outlet for at least one year within the last 20 years or three months within the last five years; someone with a substantial track record of freelancing in the last five years; or a student journalist.” This is a big deal because the so called “amateur journalists,” the ones that do it for fun, are at risk because they will not have the same protection from the government as a professional would. The law is controversial because it would put a strain on the first amendment, which extends freedom of press to all Americans, since it would be creating this “elite” tier of reporters that have more privileges than others. They government should never coerce reporters into telling their sources unless an article can cause physical repercussions for a nation. The first amendment states that Americans have the freedom of speech, so people should be allowed to say what they want. If the person does not provide a source then the article or journal entry does not have to be believed because they are not providing sufficient proof, so the government should not coerce people for that information. Obama’s support for the law is ironic because his administration is one of the primary reasons that a law like this is beneficial, although not is all senses. Obama and his administration have tried to coerce the sources out of Edward Snowden, which with this law they could never do. So, it is ironic because he is one of the reasons that the law is being passed to defend against.
ReplyDelete~~Colton Herren~~
The passage of the shield law is extremely controversial because it gives the United States Government the power to recognize only who they want as journalists in order to give legal protection to some journalists. Also, the notion that some reporters will now get more legal protection from the government in regards to forced testifying about controversial articles and sources is absolutely ludicrous. The government should only be able to coerce journalists to reveal sources if it is a matter of national security, but other than that forcing reporters to reveal information is a violation of the first amendment in regards to freedom of press. The fact that Obama is an advocate of this law is ironic because critics believes his support is derived from the fact that classified government information has been leaked in his administration. One instance in which I have experienced this stripping of freedom is when a certain school system that I was involved in took away the freedom to express myself by making me tuck in my shirt; upon hearing this at the time, I was shocked and outraged and this ludicrous policy still plagues me today.
ReplyDeleteSidhanth Chandra
Nisha Singh
ReplyDeleteThe whole deal with the senate passing the shield law is that they are saying that this law is set to "protect" journalist , yet they say certain people do not follow under this category. They say that a 17 year old blogger does not deserve a legal shield, but what categories this individual of not being a "journalist" . In my opinion you can not pass a law saying that the law protects all journalist but then say certain people do not apply. This law is very two sided and the senate needs to redefine what their definition of a "real reporter is." This law may give advantages certain groups of people, there are two sides of the coin in the case. The first one being the undo advantage that a journalist can take under this legal shield. The other side is that government should not declare who qualifies as "real reporters."
I believe that media shield bill should be totally abolished. The Government has no business in interfering in freedom of speech. Congress should make no law prohibiting freedom of the exercise of freedom of speech, as the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I do not believe there should be any law that should favor any particle group of people, including journalist and reporters. Obama attitude toward press freedom has been confusing. On one hand he's supporting the bill to shield the special group of Washington press. At the same time he's old opposite view for the whole world, who are all also in need of independent reporting.We all should have the same rights granted whether we are reporters or a 17 year old blogging on their website.
~STAY SWAGGY RAY RAY LIKE ME~
The shield law would help to protect reporters, but the law only extends to professional reporters and does not include citizen bloggers and writers. If the law is passed, it will not protect the everyday citizen blogger. This gives the professional reporters an advantage in their reporting because they would be protected by law. If the information a reporter finds is highly important to a certain criminal act, the government should be allowed to know the source; however, reporters should not be punished in any way for finding or having the information. The shield law was never thought about until the Qbama administration moved into office because the Obama administration often bugged press offices to learn more information about what the reporters in big firms were finding. These actions by the Obama administration caused the need for a protection law, the shield law, in order to protect the rights of reporters, yet Obama himself is for the passing of the shield law.
ReplyDeleteSarah Tisdale
The shield law passed by the Senate gives special privilege to some reporters, but discounts other freelance reporters, like bloggers. The shield law is controversial because the freelance journalists do not receive the same legal shield as the journalists accepted by the Senate. This law will also give the government more power to control what information reaches the public and whom the information comes from. The government should be able to “coerce” reporters to reveal their sources of information if the information they report can affect public safety. According to the article, it is ironic that President Obama supports the shield law because the law has been made more necessary by the actions of his administration; his administration has tapped many phone lines at the Associated Press and has prosecuted both the informants and reporters who have gained access to sensitive information.
ReplyDelete-Abriana Fornis
The big deal about the Senate passing this shield law is to protect the confidential information that journalist have access to. It is controversial because there is a blurred line between unprofessional teenage bloggers with information and professional journalist with information. It should be up to the reporters wether they tell where they got their information from, and the government should not be able to continuously push the reporters for information they do not want to release (like where they found their sources). The article says, “The intent of the federal shield is to enshrine in law what, until the Obama administration, had been maintained mostly as a tradition – that reporters shouldn’t have to testify about how or through whom they received sensitive Information with a demonstrable public interest,” which makes Obama supporting it ironic. It is ironic that Obama supports this law because he would be the one who wants to find out where the private information about him and other things related to the country came from.
ReplyDeleteBrooke Gilbert
Mark Chapman
ReplyDeleteThe big deal is that the shield law, even though not unconstitutional, does carry a sense of censorship with it. This is controversial because by claiming someone isn't an official journalist and denying them protection based on that, you can scare away a voice that may have had even a few ears listening to it. There is no reason not to protect third party journalists. The government should not "coerce" reporters to reveal sources of information any further than to the point of asking them. If the reporters or their source wishes to keep that source anonymous, they have a right to. The only exception being if that information endangers anybody or is classified information from any country. What was ironic about Obama supporting the shield law was that under his administration several phone-tapping cases have been reported at several large media distributing companies.
If the Senate passed this law all reporters would not be given equal protection from the government. Even though journalists would be classified differently “real reporters” and “citizen journalists” would essentially be doing the same thing. A journalist should not be forced to reveal his/her sources because this could damage his/her career and ruin his/her credibility. The government should only be able to coerce a person to reveal a sources if it involves national security or possibly saving lives. Also, a person should not be physically harmed in order to obtain information. The article suggests that it is ironic that Obama supports the shield law because this law would not have deemed Thomas Paine to be a “real reporter”. Yet he was an instrumental person in inciting the American Revolution and crucial to the formation of the U.S.
ReplyDeleteJakeias McGee
1. The shield law is controversial because it's stating that anyone who is not a professional journalist is not allowed to have protection from government when publishing their works. This is mainly towards reporters who wish to put everything on the media, but the Senate claims that they should not be able to.
ReplyDelete2. As they claim in the article, they are not breaking the first amendment in the right to press. "On its face, the proposed shield law doesn’t affect the First Amendment, which at any rate doesn’t guarantee anybody’s right to publish whatever they want. The bill simply adds extra protections against being forced to testify about sources for established reporters and freelancers with a “considerable” amount of publishing experience. It also allows a judge to make a declaration as to who’s a journalist and who’s not in an attempt to build the shield as wide as possible." I see the law as a potential threat. We should be allowed the right to report any stories happening all around the world. Just because you aren't a professional journalist doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to publish or post news stories. If that were the case, the government just needs to go ahead and get rid of all computers because I guarantee that even with the new law in place, people will post what they like, especially with Internet.
3. It's ironic because it's an unnecessary law that has been made necessary by Obama and his administration.
The passing of the shield law is controversial because some Americans feel that it is an infringement of our First Amendment right to have freedom of speech and press. I feel that the government would not be able to take this coerce of reporters very far because of the right we have been given. The government would not be able to go very far because of the law's specifics. Obama supporting this law is ironic because he is the president of the United States, a country which is a part of the slim 39% that are considered a free country. This law could be a violation to our First Amendment rights. I know as a person who is possibly considering journalism as a profession that I would not want the government telling me I am not qualified enough to publish.
ReplyDeleteJanna Meeks
The big deal about the Senate passing the shield law is that it will protect journalists and bloggers from having to fight legal battles and having to testify about their work. The law in controversial because it is debated if the legal protection will be limited to only “real reporters” or if, for example, a 17-year-old drop out could make a blog account for five dollars and cause trouble. Also, it is controversial who the shield law will apply to because with out limiting its power, anyone who blogs anything will have a special privilege. The government should be able to coerce reporters to reveal sources and information if what they have written is threatening to the country or its citizens, or if it is meant to cause mobs or riots out of anger. It is ironic that President Obama supports the shield law because the Obama administration has prosecuted whistleblowers and reporters who had gained access to data with an unprecedented vigilance, and the Obama administration has been caught tapping dozens of phone lines.
ReplyDeleteKatie Irvin
Reece Johnson
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the senate passing the shield law is some people think it infringes on their first amendment rights of freedom of the press. It is controversial because who can you decide if a person is considered a journalist. I think that if a person is a threat to the government or anybody else the government should be able to do anything necessary to coerce journalists into revealing their source. It is ironic for Obama to support the shield law because its his administrations actions that have made it necessary to have this law. I think that this law should be passed to stop leakage of important government information.
1.) Journalists aren't required to reveal their sources but this law gives traditional reporters more protection than "bloggers." The controversial topic at hand is the law going to violate the first amendment and how loose is the definition of "journalism" and "journalist"?
ReplyDelete2.) The government should only be able to coerce reporters if the reporter knows something that involves bring danger into the lives of American citizens.
3.)This whole issue is ironic because Obama says he supports the shield but his actions are what made the nation need the law more necessary.
This shield law is controversial because it is at risk of violating the first amendment by discouraging "unqualified" people to post information. This law is also incredibly vague, and leaves much to the opinion of the judge in whatever case concerns this law. One judge may deem someone qualified, and a different judge may deem them unqualified; this makes the law strikingly elastic and anything but a concrete law of which anyone can provide a clear definition. Regarding the governments boundaries for coercing information our of reporters any reporter has the right to contain information if they so choose. If the government has to go to more extreme actions in order to drive an answer out of the journalist for more pressing matters such as those involving possible deaths or loss of property, then they have the right to do that. If it is for petty reasons, then they should respect the journalist's right not to speak. The irony in Obama supporting the law lies in the fact that he is supporting it almost immediately after several "unqualified" people revealed to the entire country secret plans of the government that would most certainly affect the American people.
ReplyDelete-Sharly Lovitt
The shield law protects a select group of journalist characterized as "corporate media" while neglecting "citizen" bloggers. The government should be able to coerce reporters in revealing their sources only when the source threatens a person's or peoples' longevity. Obama is criticized as being ironic because before the incident with the NSA, reporters weren't pushed to testify or reveal their sources concerning sensitive information.
ReplyDeleteIyana Gray
Kacy Howard
ReplyDeleteI think that it's a good thing. Despite the fact that many states have media shield laws, they still don't protect you from the federal government and additionally, they're inconsistent as to what they protect and who they protect. If Journalists are protected from revealing their sources then they're more likely to print important stories that may otherwise be unreported for fear of being forced to reveal sources. Witnesses are also more likely to come forth to a journalist if they knew the journalist couldn't be forced to reveal their identity. The government should not be able to "coerce" the reporters to reveal their sources at all because if that were the case, many reporters wouldn't have any stories because of the lack of protection. It's ironic because Obama is the president.
The big deal about the senate passing the shield law would be it being the country’s first attempt to create what critics call an “elite” tier for the institutional press. It is controversial because the senate does not know who they should call real reporters who deserve the legal shield and who shouldn’t. The law is also controversial because it would subvert a free press by giving institutional advantage to government-approved media outlets and it would give the Department of Justice powerful discretion that could potentially be used to intimidate amateur reporters who are also working in the public interest. The government would be able to prosecute journalist and reporters who have gained access to that kind of data with an unprecedented vigilance and the administration could tap into phone lines at the associated press to coerce reports to reveal sources of information. The ironic part about Obama supporting the shield law is that he prosecuted reporters who have gained access to classified data, but the shield law states that reporters shouldn’t have to testify about how they received sensitive information with a demonstrable public interest. –Kelsey Skurka—
ReplyDeleteShelley Curry
ReplyDeleteThe shield law is a law that prevents reporters from giving up their confidential sources in court. This law would be a big deal because before this law, if you were put in contempt if you did not give up your information, but with this law in act you are allowed to withhold your sources of information.There is such controversy over this law because people fear that it could possible effect the First Amendment which is the freedom of speech. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse reports that all they are doing is adding privilege to First Amendment rights so there is no threat to it. When you are asked how far the government should go with this, it really depends on the situation. If what a reporter is with holding is a threat to someone or something then the government has every right to pry for information. Obama believing in the shield law is ironic because Obama prefers a transparent government and this law is the opposite of that.
Megan Bandy
ReplyDeleteI think the big deal is can or should the government be able to decide who is a real reporter and who is not. After listening to Senator Dianne Feinstein on the video, her and her colleagues were very specific about the amendment. She is passionate about her beliefs on the matter citing “what constitutes a “real reporter” deserving of extra protection versus what a “17-year-old blogger” who doesn’t deserve a legal shield. In some ways I agree with her because students go to college for years to study the profession of journalism. When they graduate from college they want to report on real news stories and work in a newsroom, for a newspaper company, etc. On the other hand, you have someone who blogs or tweets something with no real credentials or gives little to no thinking into what was written. I would assume most bloggers start out in journalism this way by testing the waters to see if they like to write, report, or investigate a story. I feel this is how journalists get their true start. I do understand how some people feel the government has their hand in everything – even attempting to define “journalist”.
I do feel to some degree that journalists (“real” or not) should disclose information as it pertains to preventing a murder or child kidnapping, help stop acts of terrorism or information that could cause severe harm to national security. That is an act of preventing a serious offense from happening.
It is ironic because Obama’s administration has prosecuted both whistleblowers and reporters who have gained access to damaging data with an unprecedented vigilance but yet his administration has been caught tapping dozens of phone lines. Also, he supports the shield law but the shield law has been more necessary while he’s been in office.
The shield law is a law that protects witnesses from revealing certain information, in this case sources, in court. The controversy is that the courts are ruling who is “creditable” enough to be protected under the law. The big deal with it being passed is that it doesn’t protect average citizens with a voice, only people with a background in publishing who are established writers. The government should not overstep its boundary in pushing a reporter to reveal his or her source unless it’s viable to national security or talks of a plan to an act of terror or other crime. The pentagon cases are a good example in order to get to the bottom of the leaks the government had to do some digging. The confidentiality rights of a source should remain protected in order to keep them and their family out of harms way. The government should only get involved if there is a treat. It is ironic that Obama states that he supports the shield law that his administration as been made necessary through their actions.
ReplyDeleteKACI CRAWFORD
Silvia Brosolo
ReplyDeleteThe problem that the passing of the Shield law is causing is, first of all, if it is right or not, but its controversial aspect is on who this law should be applied. In fact, there are contrasting opinions about the distinction between big newspaper reporters and, for example, blogger; the main question is whether this law is applied only to professional journalists and reporters or also to more "amateur" reporters or bloggers.
Anyway, the government should be able to force reporters reveal their sources only when, like it is related in the article, there is a danger for people or national security; this should be applied on any person that relates facts, being this person a famous journalist or not. It is true that if anybody can spread information without sharing the source, it is hard for people to know "what to believe", how reliable that information is; but it is also true that it is up to readers to decide to trust the reporter that willingly mentions a reliable source. Anyway, the reporter must not be obliged to do that, with the exceptions of the cases mentioned above.
According to the article, the ironic fact is that Obama, who supports the Shield law, is actually involved in the tapping of phone lines: this way his administration is not respecting the principles of the Shield law, and that is why the author of the article claims that it is Obama's administration which made that law more necessary.
I think that the deal is that there they dont want to pass the law for legal shield becuase they said that a 17 year old blogger doesnt derserve legal shield but reporters do. Its controversial because teens are i guess paying to get sources I think the government should go as far as they want with this. And i guess that its ironic because it goes against the amendment. -stephon
ReplyDeleteThis was a hard one
Many people all over the world, including Drudge, believe that everyone should have a voice. The new shield bill is a big deal because though they are saying it is not affecting the 1st Amendment, it is. The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law.... abridging freedom of speech." This law is taking the right out of citizens to have a voice because it is saying that only journalists with a "considerable" amount of experience will be able to publish. Reporters should not be "coerced" to do anything. There are plenty of reporters with different opinions on whether something is right or wrong, the government should have the power to find the reporters who will willingly give them the answer they need without having to pry it out of them. Obama does support the shield law, however, it is ironic because it is Obama's behavior that has made this shield law seem more necessary.
ReplyDelete- Emmy Melchior
The big deal about the shield law is that the law is only given to big writers and not the local writer, meaning that the local writer can be prosecuted instead of the big writer. The law is controversial because it supposedly contradicts the 1st amendment, freedom of speech. The government should not go into getting reporters to reveal information more than once, because after doing this once the reporters will proceed to make a big deal of it. It's ironic for President Obama to support this law because he is a democrat and he believes that everything should be split evenly, not just split on one side.
ReplyDelete~Azeeza Abdulrauf~
With the Senate passing the shield law they are limiting who can be a journalist. This is a big deal because all they are going to do is twist a few things around and make the circumstances fit their needs. By the shielding act journalists and bloggers who report news to the public will be protected from being forced to testify about their work under a media shield bill. This bill is controversial because it is breaking the first amendment. The government shouldn't have to coerce reporters because they are high in society and have enough power to get the information out of people that are wanting to give it. It is ironic that Obama's supporting the law because Obama is allowing people to spied on and watched after in our country.
ReplyDelete-Danielle Deese
It is controversial because the senate is trying to control who is consider a "journalist" and who is not. The is bad for many reasons. If someone were to put some controversial information on a website the government could not consider them a journalist and prosecute them. They could also make news organizations give them then information. This extra pretection they give so- called news organizations could allow them to do a lot of things. This is ironic due to the fact that the Obama administration has prosecuted many journalist for saying controversial information.
ReplyDeleteHarrison Sentell
ReplyDeleteThe Shield Law saying that people who writing on blogs and other outlets on the internet are not real journalist. The problem with this is the government is now saying who is doing their job and deserves a title and who doesn't. What if this continues into other areas of the work place. Will the government start calling farmers just gardeners.
The government should not be allowed to coerce reporters to reveal their sources. The source should be the one to come forward if needed. If the government is having to force the journalist to tell where they got their information, then the journalist is basically being punished for doing their job. The government should use their agencies and other abilities to find out these things.
This is ironic because there is a title of another report about Obama wanting to punish what the Senate would consider a real journalist for something he reported. I think the government just needs to get on the same page.
Harrison Sentell
Harrison Sentell
ReplyDeleteThe Shield Law saying that people who writing on blogs and other outlets on the internet are not real journalist. The problem with this is the government is now saying who is doing their job and deserves a title and who doesn't. What if this continues into other areas of the work place. Will the government start calling farmers just gardeners.
The government should not be allowed to coerce reporters to reveal their sources. The source should be the one to come forward if needed. If the government is having to force the journalist to tell where they got their information, then the journalist is basically being punished for doing their job. The government should use their agencies and other abilities to find out these things.
This is ironic because there is a title of another report about Obama wanting to punish what the Senate would consider a real journalist for something he reported. I think the government just needs to get on the same page.
Harrison Sentell
Caylin Kliner:
ReplyDeleteA media shield law is designed to protect reporters' privilege, or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Some people believe they should not have "any shield" and do not consider bloggers to be reporters or journalists. The proposed shield law doesnt affect the First Amendment, it does not guarantee anyone's right to publish whatever they want. There are so many bloggers but there are some that do it as a profession for money that is why it is so important. I do believe the government has a right to know who the source is if it concerns acts of terrorism or breach of security. However i do not believe they should have to reveal their sources if it doesn't harm anyone. It is very ironic that Obama supports the shield law when in fact he prosecuted whistleblowers and reporters who gained access to information that the administration did not want out. I don't see how he can support this shield law if he is going to bend the rules.
Brady Fowlkes
ReplyDelete1.The "big deal" concerning this law is the fact it is refining the term "journalist" from meaning anyone who puts in effort to discover and report news to a more official title, like that of an employee/reporter/journalist for a news company, website, or any other entity which actively reports news. However, the law also puts into affect a more protective "shield" for journalists and the limitation of investigators and other law enforcers on how how they can go about forcing said journalists to disclose their sources and means of obtaining their distributed knowledge. This protection, however, only applies to the now stricter definition of "journalist"; therefore, less citizens are actually being protected by the enacted law.
2. Law enforcement should not be able to force disclosure of sources unless situations are dire/extreme. Discretion as to what "serious" constitutes would have to be decided upon by a higher official, likely a judge.
3. The irony behind Obama's support of the bill is the fact that his strict investigative policies are the reason the bill must be enacted; therefore, if he truly supported the bill, he would eliminate the "middle man", a.k.a. loosen policies on forceful disclosure of sources and information, and the bill will be superfluous.
Kaitlyn Elwood
ReplyDeleteThe reason it is causing such a ruckus is because its not going to actually protect everyone only certain journalist. They are saying only a REAL reporter deserves extra protection, what about everyone else though? Also, it is their decision to decide if they feel that they are an actual “reporter.” Which with all of the technology there is now it is not fair. Everyone’s ideas can be expressed in so many ways and in most cases they probably won’t feel they are much of an actual “journalist.” Also by making the “journalist” have to state where they are getting their info is a violation of the first amendment? Have they never heard of Freedom of Press? Guess not.
They government should only get involved and actually coerce the reporters to reveal the source of information if it is going to interfere with our protection. Safety always comes first no matter what the case is. They shouldn’t coerce the reporters to reveal if they are just mad about a controversial issue or something that is published makes them upset. Not until it is affecting our citizens lives should they coerce the reporters to reveal their source.
What is so ironic about Obama supporting the shield law is that he should be fair to all citizens of America about protection of any type. It is as if he is favoring one side more than other, which should not happen.
Meghan Adamczyk
ReplyDeleteIt is controversial because it is interfering with the Fist Amendment. Also, the government should not have to do anything "coerce" because there is enough reporters that have enough power to get information out of people who are willing to go the extra mile and give that information up. This is ironic on Obama's part because he is the reason the law is being brought up.
Most journalists feel that this shield law is unreasonable for the rights of “non-professional” journalists.
ReplyDeleteThe government should be able to coerce reporters to reveal sources of information if the information is crucial to events such as child kidnapping, possible murder plots, and other acts of violence that can harm the general public.
It is ironic that Obama is supporting this shield law because it is as though this shield law is more necessary than it should be in regards to his administration. The freedoms bestowed upon journalists and other writers is that they are able to reveal and or support certain figures and events in history.