Senate Bill Aims to Define Who Is a Journalist

SENATE BILL AIMS TO DEFINE WHO IS A JOURNALIST
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Walter Pincus]
The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last week with bipartisan support. It is better known as the reporter's shield law. While the proposal has progressed much further in Congress than past efforts, it is far from a sure thing and continues to draw opposition, at least in its current form, from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). One of the biggest issues is just who is a journalist, or in the phrase the bill uses, a "covered person." Once that definition is clarified -- and even Judiciary members say it's not settled -- a journalist would under most circumstances not have to disclose to federal authorities or in civil lawsuits the identity of sources who have been promised confidentiality. Also protected will be records, communications, documents or other information that this "covered person" receives from confidential sources, as well as notes the journalist makes of conversations with these sources. The Senate committee bill employs a broad definition: A "covered person" is someone "engaged in journalism," which itself is defined as "the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR200710...
(requires registration)
* The Public’s Right to Know
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] What the press is seeking, and what the Senate Judiciary Committee has now endorsed in compromised form, is not a blank check or an absolute protection against ever revealing a source. It is a balancing of interests that seeks to avoid harm to news gathering but allows disclosure of sources when found to be truly necessary to protect the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09tue3.html?ref=todayspaper
(requires registration)