A privilege for the privileged

Amy Gahran of the Poynter Institute writes that a proposed federal shield law would actually be a step backwards. Under the original version, the bill would protect “a person engaged in journalism” from having to reveal his or her anonymous sources, a definition seemingly elastic enough to cover bloggers.

The new version, by contrast, covers “A person who, for financial gain or livelihood [Gahran’s emphasis], is engaged in journalism,” which would largely restrict the shield law’s protections to professional journalists. Gahran writes:

Journalism is a practice, not a priesthood. At its core it’s about committing acts of journalism, not about getting a degree, being employed, or even getting paid. I think a federal shield law with such exclusive language would only serve to diminish the practice and independence of journalism, especially among people who are sticking their necks out entirely on their own to do it.

She adds that she hopes President Bush vetoes it. (Don’t worry; he will.)

As we’ve seen in recent years, journalists have no constitutional right to protect their anonymous sources if they’re call into court to testify. Judith Miller‘s case is the best-known, but there are many others as well.

Forty-nine states either have shield laws or state-court opinions that essentially require judges to consider all other options before forcing journalists to testify. But there is no such protection at the federal level, which is why Congress is now considering such legislation.

The trouble is, as Gahran notes, the First Amendment recognizes no special privileges for journalists as a class. Nor should it. The First Amendment is for all of us. By passing a shield law that protects journalism as an activity, Congress would be honoring the spirit of the First Amendment. The change Gahran rightly worries about would only protect members of the “priesthood.”

It would be interesting to learn why the language was changed, and who was behind it.

NPR’s “On the Media” has a good summation of the shield-law debate.

Scotto heading to Albany

Former WRKO Radio (AM 680) talk-show host Scott Allen Miller is heading to Albany, N.Y., to become program director and morning-drive host at WROW (AM 590). This will be Scotto’s second stint in the Capital District.

Mrs. Media Nation hails from the Albany suburbs, so I have some familiarity with the region. I’ll send Scotto off with this Albany Times Union multimedia package on “Central Ave: Broken Dreams, Second Chances.”

You call this a plan?

Gov. Deval Patrick appears to have completely alienated State Treasurer Tim Cahill over his casino-gambling proposal — and Cahill’s a casino supporter. But that’s OK — the numbers don’t add up anyway (see this and this).

With the casino legislation smoldering around him, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Newton, picks the perfect time to say he favors casino gambling.

Finally, the Boston Daily blog is going to start flogging the casino story without mercy. So stay tuned.

Update: As of Wednesday night, the Herald reports that Patrick is trying to make amends with Cahill.

My standard disclosure.

Nostalgia won’t pay the bills

Roy Peter Clark of the Poynter Institute is creating a buzz by arguing that we all have a duty to buy the print editions of newspapers. He writes:

Until we create some new business models in support of the journalism profession, we’ve got to support what we have, even as we create and perfect online versions that may one day attract the advertising dollars and other revenues we need to do what we do well.

Needless to say, it’s not going to happen. Nor do I think it should. If newspaper executives have decided to give away their product online in the hopes that advertising will pay the bills, then we should take that at face value. By all means, get the print edition if you think it’s a better experience. But don’t be guilt-tripped into it.

I’m old-fashioned enough to want to read a good newspaper in a fairly comprehensive way and not get sucked into the search-engine approach to news. But when a newspaper Web site is well designed, I’m perfectly happy to read it on the Web rather than in print.

Besides, really good newspaper Web sites, such as the New York Times’, are better than print. Earlier this afternoon I watched Anthony Tommasini as he explained 12-tone music and played examples on his piano. It was pretty interesting stuff, but I still have no interest in reading the story.

Recently, as we all know, the Times dropped its paid online service, TimesSelect, on the theory that it can make more money through Web advertising.

I understand what Clark is saying. But no business ever succeeded by persuading people to pay for something they can get for free. We need to get to the point at which online newspapers are making enough money to support journalism. Embracing a dying model does nothing to move us closer to that day.

The mother of all (potential) conflicts

You think the New York Times Co.’s 17 percent stake in the Red Sox creates a conflict of interest for the Times Co.-owned Boston Globe? It could have been worse — much worse.

Today the Globe’s Matt Viser checks in with a long front-page story on efforts by Joe O’Donnell, a part-owner of Suffolk Downs, to build a casino at the sagging track. Mayor Tom Menino seems to think it’s a good idea, which is a shame. It’s also a shame that so much of our local public discourse is now taken up by casino gambling.

Anyway, you may recall that last year retired General Electric chief executive Jack Welch and local advertising executive Jack Connors proposed to buy the Globe from the Times Co. Welch was the big celebrity, so he always got mentioned. Connors was the semi-celebrity, so he usually got a shout-out as well.

But there was a third member of the troika whose name often got left out — O’Donnell, who got rich selling hot dogs and popcorn at sporting events. How would you have liked the Globe to be reporting on a casino bid involving one of its co-publishers? Ugh.

My standard disclosure.

In Terry we trust

Can Josh Beckett win Games 4 and 7? If so, then the Sox only have to win one other game. We’re going to have to trust Terry Francona on this. If he says Beckett can’t go on three days’ rest, then he can’t go.

If Beckett can go Tuesday, then I’d have Diasuke on a short leash tomorrow. If he gets in trouble early, bring in Wakefield. And if he doesn’t have it, hello Julian Tavarez. What the heck. Tavarez has definitely had his moments.*

It’s pretty amazing. The team with the best starting pitching in the league is down to one consistently reliable starter — although I expect Schilling will be heard from before this is over. Last night wasn’t a fluke, but it wasn’t what Schilling is capable of, either.

How depressing was it to have the bullpen set up perfectly through 10 innings only to have to bring in Gagné in the 11th?

*Um, I guess he’s not going to have any of those moments this week. He’s not on the playoff roster. Whoops.

Sliming Scotto

Adam Gaffin’s got the links on how former WRKO Radio (AM 680) talk-show host Scott Allen Miller’s Wikipedia entry was recently vandalized to make him appear as a Satan-worshipper who’s into porcine bestiality.

The idiotic stunt was almost certainly perpetrated by someone at Entercom, WRKO’s parent station, as Brian Maloney discovered by inspecting the digital entrails. Miller, who held his tongue when he was fired to make way for Tom Finneran, responds with class.

At this moment, at least, it looks as though the vandalism has been undone.