Free Flow of Information Act Sells Bloggers Short

I was interviewed this week by Congressional Quarterly Researcher which publishes research reports on American government and politics aimed at school libraries. They are working on a report about citizen journalism. The last question concerned the Free Flow of Information Act, a federal shield law for reporters. As the first members of the house to have a blog, you’d think Mike Pence would know better than to sponsor a piece of legislation that goes out of its way to deny citizen journalists the same legal protections as employees of corporate media organizations. The current version of the FFIA is little more than “affirmative action” for corporate media. It grants special privileges to entities or persons based solely on whether they are part of a corporate media organization. Under the FFIA, a “covered person” is one who happens to work for a corporation that operates a print or broadcast media business. To get a sense of just how absurd the FFIA is consider that the poster child for the FFIA, Judith Miller was NOT protected by the law after she left The New York Times until she signed her book deal. Under this law, a journalist is not a journalist unless they are cashing a corporate paycheck.

The Definition section of the FFIA reads:

(1) The term `covered person' means--
(A) an entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that--
(i) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(ii) operates a radio or television broadcast station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or
(iii) operates a news agency or wire service;
(B) a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such an entity; or
(C) an employee, contractor, or other person who gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for such an entity.

UPDATE: Maybe there’s hope for this bill - under the O’Grady v. Apple ruling a blogger could be a covered person because they disseminate information by electronic means “and that” publishes an “other periodical”. Which begs the question, “why not make it explicit?”