E-Media Tidbits

Jenn Jenn, via Flickr (CC license) Whether you're a "real" journalist may come down not just to whether you get paid, but how much, under a bill just passed by the House.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "The overwhelming support of the bill could indicate that the House is prepared to override the potential presidential veto. If the president were to veto the bill, Congress could overcome the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in favor of the bill."

Earlier I wrote about how the language of the House bill had evolved to cover only people paid to commit journalism -- which would leave student journalists, citizen journalists, and other engaged in other unpaid journalistic efforts without legal protection from being forced to serve as an arm of the government, law enforcement, or overzealous lawyers. Well, yesterday David Ardia of the Citizen Media Law Project reported that, thanks to a last-minute amendment by Representative Fred Boucher (D-Va.) the House bill's language has become even more restrictive.

As passed by the House, the bill now defines a "covered person" as: "a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person." [Emphasis added.]

RELATED RESOURCES

Get E-Media Tidbits as an RSS feed: * Copy this link and add it to your feed reader Subscribe to receive E-Media Tidbits by e-mail: * Sent Monday-Friday, 5 p.m. ET

In his incisive analysis of this last-minute change, Ardia observes: "This change significantly narrows the bill's coverage and is plainly aimed to exclude non-traditional journalists. But it doesn't just exclude those whom some in Congress derisively call 'bloggers.' The new definition would likely exclude many freelance journalists who must rely on other work to supplement their incomes. Do we really want judges to be deciding whether a journalist is earning enough money to qualify for protection?"

Ardia also notes that the House and Senate versions also differ in the scope of protection they provide: "Under the Senate version, protection is afforded only if a confidential source is involved or when documents are acquired upon a promise of confidentiality. The House version contains no such limiting language."

If you're following this issue, here's what Ardia says will happen next: "If the full Senate passes something before the end of this year -- an uncertain proposition according to the Associated Press -- both versions will end up in conference where the competing versions will have to be reconciled. It's likely that any final legislation will incorporate both limitations, resulting in a shield bill of limited scope and usefulness."