Are Bloggers Journalists?: Redux

Katherine Mangu-Ward | October 17, 2007

By a vote of 398-21, the House voted to protect journalists and some bloggers from being forced to reveal confidential info on the witness stand--sort of. The Free Flow of Information Act was seriously watered down as it evolved, stripping what skimpy protection it offers from "casual" bloggers.

Here's the progression, as charted by friend-of-reason Declan McCullagh:

#1 Original version:

The term "covered person" means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

#2 Second version approved by a House committee:

The term "covered person" means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

#3 Third version as approved by the full House:

The term "covered person" means 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.

Whew, glad Judy Miller and I made it in under the wire, even if I don't think journalists should have special protections in the first place.

The courts and Congress need to get their story straight about whether bloggers are legit media or not.