Pia Hansen: Law begs question: What is a journalist?

I spent the weekend surrounded by my peers. Nope, I wasn’t at a two-day picnic with the National Danish Sisterhood of America (though I have said “yes” to coffee with the chapter in Colville). I was at a journalism workshop which I’d helped put together at Gonzaga University.

I’m president of the local chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and we had invited another journalism organization, Investigative Reporters and Editors, to come and present one of its Better Watchdog Workshops.

Sounds pretty straightforward doesn’t it? Well, except for one thing: We couldn’t be sure who would show up, because currently we can’t agree on how to define a journalist, or why it is – or is not – important to do so.

A dentist has a dental degree, as well as a license to practice.

An attorney has graduated from law school and maintains a good standing with the bar association.

This may surprise some people, but there is no bar association for journalists, there is no “accredited journalism license.”

Anyone who can have a conversation or take a picture can be a journalist; it’s inherent in our definition of a free press. So why is there suddenly this heartburn over defining “journalist”?

Because we are talking about adopting a shield law, that’s why.

The District of Columbia and 32 states have shield laws, but neither Washington nor Idaho has one, and there is no federal shield law, either.

Very simply put, a shield law grants a journalist the right to protect confidential sources, even when faced with a subpoena.

Some sources fear repercussions and will never talk if their identity can be revealed in a courtroom.

Some journalists fear going after controversial stories because they can be subpoenaed and forced to hand over all their work, in some cases effectively turning them into the investigative branch of the government.

That was never the point of a free press.

In Washington, one bill has passed both the House and the Senate, so there’s hope, but nationally we are pretty far from agreeing on anything.

The lack of a federal shield law is an increasing problem as stories are disseminated across state lines on the Internet.

And some journalists, even in states with shield laws, may find themselves in federal court being threatened with jail time if they refuse to give up their sources.

We’re hung up on language: If you can’t define who is a journalist, it’s difficult to write a law protecting journalists and their sources.

On Saturday, immediate past SPJ national president and University of Florida journalism professor David Carlson, suggested defining a journalist as someone who commits the act of journalism – collecting information with the intent to disseminate it to a wider audience – is better than trying to identify a journalist as a person with a certain affiliation or special credentials.

Carlson’s definition would include broadcasters and print reporters, bloggers and video loggers, and it would include students who work for their school paper and freelancers.

So far so good.

But it would also include PR people and some, if not all, academic researchers, and in a pinch anyone who posts on YouTube.

Over the weekend, the only two things we could agree on – and journalists don’t necessarily agree on anything – is that we do need a shield law and that we don’t want the government to decide who is a journalist and who’s not; we want to continue to be watchdogs – not lapdogs.