Chuck Schumer announced that they have enough votes to pass a bill to protect journalists. The bill would protect journalists from having to state their source. It is already a law in 48 states according to the US News and World Report website. There is no law currently at the federal level for this type of protection.
Chuck Schumer's proposal
Chuck Schumer's bill would supposedly protect journalists. But unfortunately, it does not protect all journalists. The parameters of being a journalist according to US News and the World Report website would be based upon the “reporter’s salary, employer, and frequency of publication, and exclude those who don’t fit the traditional mold of a journalist.” The bill is basically censorship.
This bill would not even protect Glenn Greenwald. He is the reporter who wrote about Verizon's unauthorized spying and leaked Edward Snowden's documents. These articles led to a bill of this magnitude being introduced into the Senate.
Chuck Schumer has limited journalism to an occupation. The bill would not protect anyone writing articles that are not paid. The bill is protecting for-profit organizations. Any independent reporter could still be asked for their source and would have to give them up or face contempt of court. The bill really shrinks the first amendment rather than protects it.
Chuck Schumer even admits that it does not go far enough. He is quoted as saying, “probably not [offer] enough protections,” according to the articles on US News and World Report.
They have enough votes to pass, but how, when the author of the bill admits it really does not do enough? There is no point in passing this bill and it probably should not have ever made it to the committee.
Any reporter on YouTube or Facebook would not be protected. Some of the breaking stories recently have come from the internet.
They are not getting paid, so they are not protected by this new bill. As Jason Stverak stated on US News and World Report, “journalism isn’t a job but a service.”
It is a public service to research and inform American citizens of events that impact on them. It is not a job. There have been a lot of stories in the past that were leaked because of confidential informants.
One of the biggest is the Watergate scandal. The story would never have broken, if not for a confidential informant. All journalists deserve protection for their reporting.
Matt Drudge's ideas on it
All journalists need protection. A lot of stories have broken that ultimately ended up false. They still need this protection. They need to admit to their mistake and let the public know the real story. If they continue to make the same mistake, then they need to be fired in their role as journalists.
This is the current situation within media circles. They print the news as soon as they get it without verifying the authenticity of the work. They hardly ever issue corrections later.
Donald Trump is also trumpeting against fake news.
Just last week, he tweeted that "91% of the Network News" is negative against Trump. With this bill, they would be protected and by all means, they should be. They should start doing better investigations and report facts, not biased opinions.
The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 9, 2018
He tweeted about taking away the press credentials. This “will be licensing of all reporters,” it was reported on Yahoo.com. This is a quote from Matt Drudge, who is a supporter of Donald Trump.
He understands the importance of freedom of speech.
They cannot make laws that limit free speech. The first amendment does not have minimums. It protects the speech of everyone. The bill cannot change the first amendment. By quantifying who is protected, then this bill is limiting it.
This bill must not pass unless it is amended to include every journalist. If it protects every journalist, then the bill will protect free speech. The bill as such is not protecting free speech and is just protecting the institutions that are run for a profit.
