(Re)Defining Journalism

I heard about this piece on the radio this morning. Apparently, Josh Wolf, a self-proclaimed anarchist, videotaped some protestors at a rally-turned-violent, resulting in the injury of a police officer. A federal grand jury has subpoened the videotape. Wolf claims that the government is fishing for information concerning the protesters, some of whom gave their names and showed their faces to the camera after being masked at the protest rally. Mr. Wolf is further claiming that his work is protected under the first amendment, since he claims his work is journalistic in nature and that since he is a self-proclaimed member of the press, he should not be forced to turn over any work that would reveal sources.

This brings about a couple of questions that I do not readily have the answers to: 1)What is a qualified member of the press under the first amendment; and 2)Is it the revealing of sources that is protected or the work itself that is protected.

The first question I cannot answer. The government-school educated part of me says that some guidelines should be met before one can be considered a press journalist, in line with the thinking that the government should have a hand in defining that, but my libertarian tendencies push those thoughts aside with the nagging question of what article gives the government that right. Then, who would set the guidelines? Perhaps the industry itself. But the guidelines could be manipulated to stretch protection of the press to unreasonable bounds, so maybe some outside influence should be met. Should that outside influence be the government? I do not find where the Fed has any power to do such. But the question still remains that until some clear boundries are drawn as to what constitutes legitimate press, in the age of the internet, anyone could claim press priveledge.

Now to answer the second question. The nature of journalism is to pass information from one source to another. I am all in favor of protecting sources of information and press priveledge, but ordinary citizens who refuse to testify in a criminal trial are held in contempt of court. Those who answer dishonestly are charged with perjury. Why should a member of the press be any different? And by nature in this case, was not the video in question recorded to be shared with the public if it were truly journalistic work? The sources on this tape identified themselves voluntarily. If they did not realize that they were identified on tape, then as a journalist, Mr. Wolf failed in his fiduciary duties to his sources, and is therefore not much of a journalist to begin with. So is the work protected from subpoena itself, or does press priveledge only apply to sources who have taken measures to reasonably protect themselves from identification, whether it be Mr. Wolf or Bob Novak?

I don't have the answers, but these questions are definitely relevant for debate. Who knows, since I maintain this blog, I may be considered a journalist, although I do not claim to be one.