Defining 'journalist’ is a slippery slope

[Commentary] A bipartisan majority on the Michigan House Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 4770, which seeks to define the word “journalist.” The goal is to distinguish between those who should see accident records immediately (vehicle owners, prosecutors, journalists, etc.) and those who shouldn’t (vulture-lawyers, for example). Journalists, of course, ought to have access to public documents.

The proposed legislation, sponsored by Ellen Cogen Lipton (D-Huntington Woods), recognizes this. Unfortunately, it also comes dangerously close to the licensing of reporters. Whatever the ulterior motives of formally defining a journalist, the result is to prevent certain people from doing certain things. Trying to define authentic reporters with precision leaves out many people who earn their living reporting and writing. The bill says that journalists are employees of a radio or television station or a newspaper, which, it adds, is “published at least once a week, includes stories of general interest to the public, is used primarily for the dissemination of news, and may be published in hard copy form or on the Internet.” In the world of the Internet and social media, journalism is evolving rapidly — and HB 4770 fails to keep pace with the latest developments. Bloggers and tweeters don’t obviously satisfy the bill’s language. Nor do the journalistic activities of nonprofit groups. No government committed to preserving a free press should seek a narrow definition, and certainly not for the purpose of controlling access to public documents. HB 4770 is more likely to prevent legitimate reporters from obtaining public information than to stop the vulture-lawyers from harassing people involved in motor accidents.

[Miller is director of the Dow Journalism Program at Hillsdale College]