EC-The Reporter's Privilege

     Being an outsider to the state of Utah, it was interesting to note the praise received for being one of the last states to allow a shield law for journalists in the state of Utah.  The panel discussion last thursday on the topic of protecting confidential sources proved education for me, individually, as I consider myself somewhat of an outsider to the whole journalism legal scene, as well.  Those who participated as part of the panel shed some new light on the subject.

     Being a member of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, Mr. Dayle Jeffs set the stage for the reasoning behind the shield law.  Before the law, journalists seemed to be under the gun whenever they were subject to court appearance.  Before the shield law, journalist were basically required to give up information, even though they had stated that the information or the sources were confidential, and they were just in thinking so.  What spurned the creation of this law is when the members of the committee noted what repercussions this was having.  Mr. Jeffs said himself that, "it was disturbing to me that when a journalist finds out some important information, he is told to destroy his notes."  It seemed as though more damaged was being done by not allowing the reporters this privilege.

     Jeff Hunt started out the panel by stating that the shield law made in Utah, or referred to as Rule 509, was made "...not for the journalist, but to protect the free flow of information to the public."  My immediate response to this was to question it.  If reporters were now shielded from giving any information they deemed "confidential" then reporters could get away with reporting anything they wanted to and hide any sources of information that were actually false.  However, later on, Mr. Hunt explained that the law was formed in such a way that these loop holes were accounted for and that under certain circumstances the reporters were subject to give up information.  

     How necessary is this law?  Obviously, it is necessary for the state of Utah, but is it necessary enough to be established as a federal law?  The clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor, RonNell Jones, provided the information that in the current state of the nation, it would appear that a federal shield law is becoming more necessary.  The most interesting statistic is that subpoenas issued to journalist, over the years, has increased substantially.  In years past, there was simply not enough evidence to justify such a law to be passed, but the drastic increase of subpoenas issued has brought it to federal attention and, in her opinion, has justified a genuine need for it.

     Listening to the panel has made me much more aware of the issue and what state it is in today.  I certainly was convinced that the shield laws serve a very important purpose for journalist, but more importantly, the free flow of information to people like me.  It will be interesting to see what changes lie ahead.

The Couric Complex

     Apparently we're not done with Couric in the newsroom yet.  First it's Senator Clinton, then it's Senator Palin, and now it's Katie Couric...again?  The controversial issues that aroused as Katie Couric stepped into the limelight on CBS for the first time have come back around to haunt us now that women are the subject of politics.  It seemed to me that the issue of a woman as a top CBS anchor had relatively died down up until now.  However, "An Achor Lets Down Her Hair" was posted front page for the NYTimes last monday and rekindles the story all over again.  

     "The road to gender equality really starts when the novelty wears off.  And I think my presence anchoring a nightly newscast is much less jarring than it might have been initially," said Couric herself in the article.  I find it somewhat ironic that that quote is printed in an article that contributes to pointing out and, to a certain extent, drawing the line between men and women as an anchor.  I thought we were getting to the point where novelty is "wearing off."  I guess the fact that this article was published shows how wrong I am.  

     I do agree with the article when it states that Couric "...is a superb journalist."  I think that the diversity of a woman interviewing the new republican vice presidential candidate is refreshing.  She can offer new insight because she is a woman and because she's good at what she does.  But please, let's not go overboard with the whole issue of sexism in the newsroom again.  We'll be lucky when these types of articles focus in on only the quality of her work, rather than her gender.  That is, after all, the self contradicting point that this article is trying to get across, isn't it?

Journalist Shmernalist

  A Journalist has always been defined as someone who digs up the dirt for the public, in my mind at least.  Isn't a Journalist just someone who provides the pertinent information or, in some cases, someone who digs up worthless information, as I have felt at certain times.  This is established as a right to all that are governed by the Constitution.  So, where's the discrepancy?  Pretty much anyone can be a Journalist, if you're doing what the name implies.

  I suppose that in the past, Journalism has been more of a "professional" career and so here is where the mix ups occur.  Do we embrace the traditional means of "professional Journalism" through implied unspeakable laws, or do we take the bare bones of what makes Journalism and allow anything that can possibly fit?  There are certainly pros and cons to both sides, but what are we if we're not dedicated to a stance, right?

  Although we're not going to get the most, shall we say, "intelligent" opinions and most accurate information on what's going on from these Journalist bloggers, all the information will be there none the less.  This just means that the responsibility switches over to us as individuals to decipher what opinions are relevant and what information is relevant.  Personally, I like the added freedom that the broader definition of a Journalist entails.  However, with great freedom comes great responsibility.  I think the American people are ready for it, don't you?