Who qualifies as a reporter, and what special rights should they have?

[Cheesesteak]

@Voyager

This is a bit different. if a source provides information to a reporter assuming confidentiality, and this is violated, then sources would tend not to reveal things, and this would damage society.

In the case of Valerie Plame, I submit that not revealing things would have been a positive choice.

I think it gets very muddy when the act of revealing information is, in and of itself, a crime. Plame is one such case, and the recent Baseball Steroid Grand Jury leaks are another.

Those situations involve people who take action (being a CIA agent, testifying) under the agreement that actions are kept secret/sealed. Having that information outed does damage to society. Will grand juries now get a lot of I don’t know’s instead of good information because the secrecy is routinely violated?

[RTFirefly]

@Lemur866

But let’s take the example from the OP. Here’s a guy who videotaped some vandals. The government wants the tape, he refuses, he’s charged with contempt of court. And rightly so.

OK, so why should this videotaping be protected? And if there’s no reason for it in his case, why would the same action by a paid reporter be protected?

I don’t see it being shielded, regardless of who’s doing it. In the case of a paid reporter, how is the exposure of this videotape going to keep him from getting some future story?

Or take the Plame case. Here we have reporters invoking confidentiality of sources…not to protect a government whistleblower, but to protect Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney. Judith Miller was forced to testify, and rightly so. Tim Russert was forced to testify, and rightly so. Robert Novak was forced to testify, and rightly so.

I agree with you, but what does this have to do with the topic? Is anyone arguing that a blogger would have been protected where these reporters weren’t?

[Lemur866]

Well, my bias is against any sort of journalistic privilege. And I gave an example of two cases where reporters who asserted journalistic privilege were cited with contempt of court and sent to jail, or they cooperated with the prosecution under threat of contempt of court and avoided jail.

And I think most people would agree with the contempt citations, if anyone feels that Judith Miller shouldn’t have been forced to provide evidence, or this videoblogger shouldn’t have been forced to provide evidence, I haven’t seen them in this thread.

So my argument is that a journalist is protected by exactly the same rights as everyone else, no more, no less. It doesn’t matter if you publish your report in the New York Times or to a notebook in your bedroom. In any situation where it would be correct for a private citizen to be forced to provide evidence it would also be correct to force a journalist to provide evidence. In any situation where it would be wrong to force a journalist to provide evidence it would also be wrong to force a private citizen.

[Lust4Life]

@Aquila Be

Public interest? As defined by you?

If it involves refusing to testify in a criminal matter, “reporters” have no more rights than anyone else to withhold evidence.

Anyone who has witnessed something is fully eligible to be classed as a “reporter”. There is no priesthood of “reporters” (journalists, whatever) who have special rights and privileges over and above those of a common citizen.

Im pretty undecided on this one but if you walked up to the average man in the street who you thought might know something interesting ,would he come clean if you said you were a journo for CNN or would he tell you to F**k off if you told him that you were a chancer who might make a bob or two by selling his info to the press?

In a perfect world we re all journos ,in the real world we re not .
From my experience most organisations consider you to be a bona fide reporter if you re accredited,otherwise you dont get through the door.