I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Good cop, bad cop

Russians, Syrians jump on Kerry's proposal
After reading the WaPo’s story on the developments surrounding the US threat to bomb Syrian government military facilities in response to the Aug. 21, 2013, chemical attack that killed anywhere from 350 to 1400 Syrian civilians in a rebel-held area, I am so struck by the proposition that either President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry either have been played like a fiddle by the Russians or there was a whole lot of colluding going on to convince the Assad regime that it was in its best interest to divest itself of chemical weapons before the rebels seized them.

This is playing out like an old-fashioned crime movie, with the Russians playing the good cop and the US playing the bad cop. You know the scene where the perp is in the interrogation room and they are trying to get him to turn state’s evidence. The bad cop goes and threatens to wreak holy hell on the perp if he doesn’t turn over on his buddies in crime. The good cop comes in, offers the perp a cigarette and gets all buddy buddy with him. Warning that if he doesn't do the reasonable thing, the good cop won’t be able to protect him from the evils of the bad cop.

Bingo, the guy flips and tells all.

Now, if I was a conspiracy buff, it would seem awfully suspicious that Russian President Putin and US President Obama just happened to be at a joint meeting last week (the G-20 summit) and went to great lengths to put on a show how they couldn’t stand each other. And Kerry has his head together with his Russian counterpart where someone accidentally raises the concept. Nothing official mind you, just what do you think kind of thing.

Then, the week ends with Obama rattling the US saber as loudly as he can, but he backs off a bit to say: well, let me take this up with Congress. Over the weekend, all the talk is about trying to get Congress and the American people to buy into an act of war against Syria. Well, the media war began long ago, but that is beside the point.

Anyway, Deputy Sheriff Kerry, on his way home from a meeting with his European Union counterparts, holds a press conference and in apparent off-hand response to a question about what could avert a US attack, he say: well, if Syria would get rid of all its chemical weapons and put them under international (read UN) control in a week, then all would be hunky dory but … that’s not going to happen.

The next thing, the good cop deputy is calling the bad cop deputy and saying we got a deal and goes public with it.  By the time Deputy Kerry is on the ground, everybody knows and everybody who doesn’t want the bad cop to do anything is running around trying to figure out how they can make it happen.

Now, I am not saying this is the way things went down. I am not saying it is going to work. I am saying it does tend to make you think it might be what is going down and people in leadership positions are actually smarter than we think.

Or it really could just be another gaffe from the Obama Administration that the Russians are using for their gain and the detriment of the US.

Life is interesting, isn’t it?