What is News? Who is a Journalist?

[ESTEBEVERDE]

DISCLAIMER:

Legal Information Is Not Legal Advice

This thread's sole purpose it to discuss information and experiences in regards to who is a Journalist in the eyes of "the law" and is for informal purposes only and is no way, shape, form, or fashion intended to give legal advice. No information contained herein should be considered legal advice under any circumstances.

"Legal information" is not the same as "legal advice" -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. If you have the need for legal advice it is recommend you consult a duly qualified attorney if you want professional assurance that any information contained herein, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.





Who is a Journalist?

Who is a representative of the news media?

The term Journalist (a representative of the news media) means ANY PERSON or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses their editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.

The term 'news’ means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public.

Examples of news-media entities are television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only if such entities qualify as disseminators of ‘news’) who make their products available for purchase by or subscription by or free distribution to the general public.

These examples are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news-media entities.

These include blogs, vlogs, etc... etc...


There are distinctions between private media and Public Media....


.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Citizen Journalists and Citizen Media

 

[Bobonli]

Agreed! Look at this for example:

http://ctzn.tv/

Now at least one of these contributors are what you'd call traditional journalists in the sense he used to work for networks or newspapers, but they've gone their own way to produce their own content. There's some really good stuff out there made by citizen or backpack journalists. Real story telling, not the garbage you see on t.v every night. How many times can we hear about how many snow plows are on stand-by for the big storm.rogar-Mark-01(DBG)

I wish the rest of the world interpreted "journalist" to include ordinary citiizens. But in NY at least trying to convince the authorities that you're a citizen journalist is a recipe for a headache. Try taking your camera down to the town board meeting and standing next the the local cable tv cameraman. I bet you'd be asked to leave in less than a minute. It's a shame.

 

[Pamplemousse]

Thanks for the link Bobonli.

I'm not sure what the rules are governing who gets to be called a 'journalist' or not. If someone could clarify that, I would be grateful.

Considering all the money in cameras and people spent just to catch a glimpse of a celebrities' underwear (or lack of) in the past decade... they seem comfortable throwing around the term journalist, apparently with no sense of irony.

 

[Lensmith]

The use of the term "journalist" is as difficult to define as the term "film maker".

Anyone can claim the title but few can actually make a living at it. :happy:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

It's immaterial if they make a living at it. (Think of the many artist who were impoverished during their lives only to "make it big" after their death.)

What we are seeking here is more than a working definition.

We are seeking a legal definition.

And that my friend is exactly what is contained in my first post. :thumbsup:

 

[Lensmith]

My point about making money was to define just how easy it is to claim a title of choice. Either journalist or film maker.

The definitions of either journalist or film maker...or Director of Photography for that matter, mean nothing.

Anyone can claim them.

The making money part is nice when it comes time to pay bills and eat.

But in the end both claims of "identity" have equal value if all one wants is a title to put on a business card to impress others, but work some other job to pay their bills to actually make a living. :thumbsup:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Thanks for your reply Lensmith.

I totally understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. You are saying someone who is economically successful while engaged in their self-titled "activity" of choice.

Totally agree with that.


But, interestingly enough, the title of journalist actually is defined in the law and when one meets these requirements they are afforded a specific set of privileges and extra protections as it were.

 

[Lensmith]

The "protections" are no different than those for the average citizen.

Access is something else.

Even then...I've seen people working for traditional news organizations denied access while others, working for traditional news organizations do get access.

There is no real "all access" pass for anyone, all the time, no matter if you're part of a large company or an individual effort.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

lensmith unfortunately you are suffering from a bit of misunderstanding.

There are indeed provisions in the law that give bona fide journalist both "protections" as well as "access"

For instance:

As to access, journalist are given special access to courts, executions, military operations, government records ... etc.

Access to private functions such as basketball games, concerts, press conferences, etc... can be limited by the private party as part of their constitutional rights to privacy, free association, etc...


As to protections there are many both State and Federal and many more are being proposed such as S.2035:

Here is an example of the New York State Supreme Court extending print and media protections online

There are international protections as well.

Here is the Hand Book of Independent Journalism published by the U.S. Department of State.


It's O.K. if you do not understand all of the intricacies in regards to the 1st Amendment but it's important that you are careful not to misspeak so others are not mislead.

As you can see from just the few examples I provided here, there are indeed special protections and access given to journalist for the common good.

The awesome news is that now is probably the most exciting and uniquely powerful time for anyone who is interested in being independent journalist to dig right in.

 

[Lensmith]

I apologize for not being clear.

While the links you provided are fine, what is missing is the reality of actually achieving the access.

You will spend a lot of time and money, if you have the money, arguing for that access. It's one important reason corporations who happen to have entire legal departments at their beck and call, are able to get access when others can not.

Courts limit journalists all the time while the regular public is allowed to watch. Go to any Federal Court room and see what happens. State by state the laws of access are different while, in all those states, regular citizens can sit and watch.

Military actions? I know too many now in Iraq who are quickly kept back from military actions while others, citizens, are allowed up close. All because one carries a camera and another does not. Have you ever tried to get on a military installation anywhere in the world? No, being a journalist does little to help.

Executions? Again, limited access. At best a pool situation where one or two journalists represent "all".

Anyone and their brother can file an FOI request. You don't have to be a journalist to do that. Those Freedom Of Information requests are a standard form available to all. You don't need some title of journalist to get one.


Your examples of "access" don't hold water. In fact, in most cases, being a journalist hinders access with each and every one of those examples.


I not only understand, but live the job of a journalist every day. I've been doing it for the past thirty years. Admittedly as an employee for one of those big media corporations and not as an individual. Yet it is for that very reason, gained over years of experience, I know the difference between web sites with lists and the real world.

It all comes down to the person's ability to stand up for themselves...even if they get thrown in jail or simply denied access without any kind of formal hearing but, in the process, miss capturing the information or images they need.

Access is useful only at the time of the event a journalist wants covered. Wasting time arguing or not knowing other ways to get the information/video needed in a timely manner is a common tactic used to thwart access and media coverage.

If we are simply here to pass along links with lists of pie in the sky rules, then I must add there is an important reality being missed.

If one believes they can approach any situation and by loudly claiming they are a journalist they will be given some extra kind of automatic access, they are in for a rude awakening.

Journalists are not given any more special access to court or military action than others. In fact, many times it is the opposite. The laws are pretty basic. We, journalists, are allowed where ever the public is allowed. On occasion special access is available, but it is not a come-one-come-all access. It is special and always negotiated in one way or another well in advance.

I appreciate your concern for misleading information. However, the majority of the people on this site, and especially those asking questions about journalism, are working alone or in very small groups with limited funds. To send them off with misleading and incomplete information is counter productive. It's much better they have the entire big picture available rather than incomplete, generic information from web sites as their only blueprint for action.
__________________

 

[MikeGunter]

Hi,

There are a lot of resources out there.

The Society of Professional Journalists is one.

If one wants to shield a project under the umbrella of journalism, I should think a great deal of study - formal study - would be in order. It's a thorny path.

It's not the sort of thing a small amount of reading will solve.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Hi,

There are a lot of resources out there.

The Society of Professional Journalists is one.

If one wants to shield a project under the umbrella of journalism, I should think a great deal of study - formal study - would be in order. It's a thorny path.

It's not the sort of thing a small amount of reading will solve.

Hello Mike.

The Society of Professional Journalists is one good resource.

But you are incorrect in your assertion that it is difficult to discern whether a project is covered as a journalism or if the author is a journalist.

It's much more cut and dry now.

Please see: S.2488

 

[MikeGunter]

Hi,

I think the the paragraph you're referring to is -

20 ... A
21 freelance journalist shall be regarded as working for a
22 news-media entity if the journalist can demonstrate a solid
23 basis for expecting publication through that entity, wheth
24 er or not the journalist is actually employed by the entity.

But note "solid basis". That carries some burden of expectation of what I should think of is professional training.

I would like to think that those is responsible journalism wouldn't publish or hire buy stories from folks who haven't had some formal training. I don't see how they could. Their liability would be too great.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I apologize for not being clear.

While the links you provided are fine, what is missing is the reality of actually achieving the access.

Umm... it's the law... of course it's reality.

...

You will spend a lot of time and money, if you have the money, arguing for that access. It's one important reason corporations who happen to have entire legal departments at their beck and call, are able to get access when others can not.

...

What are you talking about? Give me concrete examples.

In the public world, this isn't the case unless it is a situation where an event can not handle the number of journalist physically. In this situation individuals are selected as "pool reporters" and MUST agree to share the footage. If there are no cameras allowed an audio feed can be provided with or without stipulations that the actual recording cannot be used only the information contained therein. It can go even further with courts and there can be only a transcript provided.


As to Private functions, some larger corporation are given access to some events due to the desire of the private party for larger coverage. Not always the case but sometimes. An example might be the Academy Awards but this is fairly rare.

...

Courts limit journalists all the time while the regular public is allowed to watch. Go to any Federal Court room and see what happens. State by state the laws of access are different while, in all those states, regular citizens can sit and watch.

...

NOT SO. COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

Courts often limit FILMING and AUDIO but never ever ever access because one is a journalist.

Just because someone is a journalist that would never in and of itself bar them from a court room. Never.

If anything, it allows them better access because they can vie for a press seat as well as a citizen seat.

Our Constitution, which ALL of our Laws MUST conform to guarantees access in almost every circumstance.

Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

But, oddly enough, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the press has a constitutional right of access to attend criminal trials but based that particular ruling on our First Amendment guarantee.

Chief Justice Burger held that the source of this right is not the Sixth Amendment' s guarantee of a public trial, but rather the First Amendment. "We hold that the right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment; without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of freedom of speech and `of the press could be eviscerated.'"


There are a few instances and circumstances where courts are closed. Most commonly when the trial involves a minor and occasionally when the defendant is at risk or under the even rarer of circumstances where "State Secrets" are involved.

...

Military actions? I know too many now in Iraq who are quickly kept back from military actions while others, citizens, are allowed up close. All because one carries a camera and another does not.

...

I've never heard of this happening and I speak with people (including my Father In Law) in Iraq several times a week.

I am sure it has happened. But, it is most certainly the exception and not the rule.

...

Have you ever tried to get on a military installation anywhere in the world? No, being a journalist does little to help.

...

Ummm... yes.

I've been on both sides.

I've been an active duty United States Marine who was responsible for the Public Affairs of the worlds largest US Marine Base and I have been a civilian journalist.

Yes, my dear friend, being a journalist has many many privileges and does get you tremendous access much more so than being "just a civilian".

...

Executions? Again, limited access. At best a pool situation where one or two journalists represent "all".

...

Of course there is limited access as there is limited space.

Seats are at a premium but journalist do get access and are much more likely again to get access because they are participating in a smaller lottery.

The extent to which executions are public is problematic and hasn't been decided by the US Supreme Court yet.

But, there are many laws throughout the United States that codify our right as journalist to view AND report on executions.

You are correct in your assertion that journalist do not have a greater right to view executions. They don't. But, mathematically and most certainly practically they have a much better chance on getting accesses.

...

Anyone and their brother can file an FOI request. You don't have to be a journalist to do that. Those Freedom Of Information requests are a standard form available to all. You don't need some title of journalist to get one.

...

Correct. You do not need to be a journalist to file a Freedom Of Information request.

BUT, you do have special privileges and access as a journalist including reduced or waived fees etc. Please see S.2488.

...

Your examples of "access" don't hold water. In fact, in most cases, being a journalist hinders access with each and every one of those examples.

I not only understand, but live the job of a journalist every day. I've been doing it for the past thirty years. Admittedly as an employee for one of those big media corporations and not as an individual. Yet it is for that very reason, gained over years of experience, I know the difference between web sites with lists and the real world.

My examples more than hold water. They are the real world. They are the everyday happenings.

...

I not only understand, but live the job of a journalist every day. I've been doing it for the past thirty years. Admittedly as an employee for one of those big media corporations and not as an individual. Yet it is for that very reason, gained over years of experience, I know the difference between web sites with lists and the real world.

I would suggest that it is more of a self limiting attitude that you have brought upon yourself.

I certainly find it odd that out of all the people I know who are indeed journalist, you are the only one to ever have made these complaints. Ever.

...

It all comes down to the person's ability to stand up for themselves...even if they get thrown in jail or simply denied access without any kind of formal hearing but, in the process, miss capturing the information or images they need.

Access is useful only at the time of the event a journalist wants covered. Wasting time arguing or not knowing other ways to get the information/video needed in a timely manner is a common tactic used to thwart access and media coverage.

...

Yes, being tactful first and foremost will get you access regardless of the law. (Remember, private parties are not required to give you access)

And, then having a spine will much more often than not get you the rest.

...

If we are simply here to pass along links with lists of pie in the sky rules, then I must add there is an important reality being missed.
....

I am afraid that the only thing that is pie in the sky my friend is your unsubstantiated assertions.

Period.

...
If one believes they can approach any situation and by loudly claiming they are a journalist they will be given some extra kind of automatic access, they are in for a rude awakening.
....

Yes... and most likely ejection for a breach of the peace and for general stupidity.

But, if you are a journalist, you do have access rights to many situations over and above that of the general public.

...
Journalists are not given any more special access to court or military action than others. In fact, many times it is the opposite. The laws are pretty basic. We, journalists, are allowed where ever the public is allowed. On occasion special access is available, but it is not a come-one-come-all access. It is special and always negotiated in one way or another well in advance.
...

Uhhh... yes they are. Time and time again I have shown you. I am sorry if you do not understand this.

It concerns me and makes me wonder if your claim that you are a journalist is dubious at best.

Even it this paragraph you have just contradicted yourself.

I have heard of embedded reporters but never embedded members of the public.

Might be a great story for you to do if it is such common place. :thumbsup:

...
I appreciate your concern for misleading information. However, the majority of the people on this site, and especially those asking questions about journalism, are working alone or in very small groups with limited funds. To send them off with misleading and incomplete information is counter productive. It's much better they have the entire big picture available rather than incomplete, generic information from web sites as their only blueprint for action.
...

First and foremost, they should know the law as this is what we in civil society use to define our rights and responsibilities.

Secondly, they should not be disused by Fear Uncertainty and Doubt that is caused by dubious claims.

Thirdly, they should seek out those that are successful and learn the tricks of the trade from them.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Hi,

I think the the paragraph you're referring to is -

20 ... A
21 freelance journalist shall be regarded as working for a
22 news-media entity if the journalist can demonstrate a solid
23 basis for expecting publication through that entity, wheth
24 er or not the journalist is actually employed by the entity.

But note "solid basis". That carries some burden of expectation of what I should think of is professional training.

I would like to think that those is responsible journalism wouldn't publish or hire buy stories from folks who haven't had some formal training. I don't see how they could. Their liability would be too great.

No... not at all.

It pretty simple really and "professional training" is in no way a measure of this legal definition of who is a journalist and what is journalism.

If you are talking about publishing someones story as a freelancer, then that is merely and editorial decision and I personally would be very very very careful who's story I published. But again, that is a business decision.


What we are talking about here is who is a journalist and what is journalism.

You can find the "legal" definition in S.2488 and now the actually law:

• Section 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
  `In this clause, the term `a representative of the news media' means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. In this clause, the term `news' means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news-media entities are television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only if such entities qualify as disseminators of `news') who make their products available for purchase by or subscription by or free distribution to the general public. These examples are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news-media entities. A freelance journalist shall be regarded as working for a news-media entity if the journalist can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity, whether or not the journalist is actually employed by the entity. A publication contract would present a solid basis for such an expectation; the Government may also consider the past publication record of the requester in making such a determination.'.

.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Just in case someone wants the law instead of the Senate Bill it can be found here:

Section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act),

S.2488 was passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

 

[Lensmith]

ESTEBEVERDE

It's pretty clear to me you don't have much experience.

This is a message board for people who use their cameras to capture images. Not simple print journalists. When I speak on a topic, it is to address this audience with it's concerns...which always mean using a camera.

I don't say that to be mean or insulting. It's simply an observation on my part.

You seem to want to see the world with Google searches and think that covers all situations. It does not.

I'll end my participation on this subject here knowing those who want real answers will see, with experience, who does and doesn't know how things work.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Thanks for your input Lensmith.

It's O.K. if you want to completely change the subject each and every time you post.

I can understand how you might be embarrassed and a bit exasperated from not being able to defend your positions.


It's O.K. too if you want to fall back on false arguments and try to throw childish barbs instead of discussing the "merits" of your assertions. I understand.


The topic is what is:

What is News? Who is a Journalist?


It's the same regardless of medium. Access and any restrictions are the same as well.

Take care, and know that you are always welcome here.

All the Best.

Estebe