The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
That's right, if you're a journalist who makes a living from donations and sponsership, because the FREE MARKET enjoys the quality of your reporting, YOU ARE NOT A "TRUE" JOURNALIST.
Apparently, only people who are under the pressure of corporate overlords giving them a salary are considered "real" journalists.
Fits in nicely with Peter Thing's (King's) wish to imprison journalists that report any classified information.
http://www.viralread.com/2013/08/05/senator-feinstein-real-reporters-are-salaried-under-shield-law/
Who is government to determine who does, who does not, have the right qualifications to be a reporter. Isn't the FREE MARKET the best judge of that standard?
What would Peter Thing's and Dianne Frankstein's baby be like?
Can this Libtard explain her reasoning? Why would a journalist who makes money from donations and sponsorship be any less a journalist who is a slave to the corporate payroll? If anything, it is the OTHER WAY AROUND!
Related article:
Senators ponder if bloggers deserve First Amendment protection
Apparently, only people who are under the pressure of corporate overlords giving them a salary are considered "real" journalists.
Fits in nicely with Peter Thing's (King's) wish to imprison journalists that report any classified information.
And so it begins. The Government has declared itself the decider of who does, and who does not, qualify as a "journalist."
A "Media Shield Law" is not even necessary, since it's already enshrined in the First Amendment. This is obviously all a pretense to create a privilege class of journalists, and to deny or disparage that right to all others.
It is hard to imagine how any journalist that makes their living from the Free Market (subscription/sponsorship/donation), would be any less qualified than a reporter that is a slave to their respective corporate paymaster. In fact, it's the other way around, the salaried "agents" of the corporations are the inferior and least trustworthy of the reporters.
http://www.viralread.com/2013/08/05/senator-feinstein-real-reporters-are-salaried-under-shield-law/
During the hearing, Feinstein proposed an amendment to the bill that would make the law only apply to journalists she described as “real reporters.” Those include reporters who are “a salaried agent” of a media company such as a newspaper, broadcast news station, news website or another type of news service. As ABC reports, Feinstein was concerned “that the current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications.”
Who is government to determine who does, who does not, have the right qualifications to be a reporter. Isn't the FREE MARKET the best judge of that standard?
What would Peter Thing's and Dianne Frankstein's baby be like?
A real reporter, declared Madame Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, is “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New York Times or ABC News, not a shoestring operation with volunteers and writers who are not paid.
Feinstein voiced her concern “that the current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications,” like bloggers and citizen journalists.
Can this Libtard explain her reasoning? Why would a journalist who makes money from donations and sponsorship be any less a journalist who is a slave to the corporate payroll? If anything, it is the OTHER WAY AROUND!
Related article:
Senators ponder if bloggers deserve First Amendment protection
Last edited: