On 12/8/2011 7:11 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:49:59 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

It seems that Freedom of the Press applies only to those who the
Government
considers suitable to own and operate the press.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-...014039441.html


That's not the First Amendment, Jim. That's shield laws, which are of
questionable constitutionality to begin with. I say that as someone
who has made his living as a conventional journalist for roughly half
of my career.

I've never fully bought the reasoning that gives journalists such
extraordinary protection against claims of libel and defamation. If
you libel someone, it's libel, no matter who you are....
Ed Huntress

What bothers me is the qualification standard mentioned, which practically
is a government-issued license to carry your opinion in public.
"Hernandez said Cox was not a journalist because she offered no professional
qualifications as a journalist or legitimate news outlet. She had no
journalism education, credentials or affiliation with a recognized news
outlet, proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or
checking her facts, evidence she produced an independent product or evidence
she ever tried to get both sides of the story.


After reading the paragraph above it would seem you have to be kidding
if you find that such a person would ever be seen as a journalist by
anyone and that includes the government. No professional qualification,
not affiliated with any news outlet, no education in the field, no
credentials or affiliation with a news outlet, no proof of any standards
or fact checking, and no evidence she produced an independent product or
tried to get both sides of the story. Whew! If that isn't an unqualified
person then who is? If this isn't an example of an ordinary person with
no journalistic qualifications whatsoever then I can't imagine who would
be.




How many officially credentialed reporters and their editors would fail
those tests? Have you ever seen a reporter characterize protesters they
agree with as 'concerned citizens' while opponents were an 'angry mob'? I
had the chance to talk to the publisher of that paper when she was
hospitalized in the same room as my mother, and discovered she was further
to the left than Lenin.


She failed all the tests of being a legitimate journalist, not just some
of them. And nobody says journalists have to be unbiased. But they
should at least meet a minimum standard of what a journalist is. She
didn't. Not by a long shot.


Ironically those reporters found themselves arguing that they weren't
professionals when they wanted overtime pay.


I've never seen it written anywhere that journalists can't be
hypocrites. Especially when it comes to how much they think they deserve
to be paid. In that regard they're like everybody else. They think they
deserve more pay than their bosses do.

Hawke