FEC Rules Bloggers Are Journalists

Dotnaught writes "The Federal Election Commission today issued an advisory opinion that finds the Fired Up network of blogs qualifies for the 'press exemption' to federal campaign finance laws. The press exemption, as defined by Congress, is meant to assure 'the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.' The full ruling is available at the FEC site. A noteworthy passage: '...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity...'"

Re:Wow!

[Dram]

Too bad it wasn't the FCC and was the FEC.

Re:Duh!

[BrynM]

Blockquoth myself:

You would love O'Reilly vs Donahue [foxnews.com]. I hope Phil runs for office someday.

Wow. I just read the Fox version. It wasn't the original version that I had read. Here's [counterpunch.org] the one I read. The difference is subtle but interesting. A round of spin for everyone!

Re:Oh, the dictators in power

[Mean_Nishka]

It wasn't pulled off the air by government regulators, it was a backlash from viewers and advertisers if I recall. Ultimately the market prevails :).

Re:Why this is necessary

[jasonditz]

Since when does campaign finance reform==freedom of speech?

I think it was about the time when they started considering public speech supporting a candidate a form of "campaign contribution". Why do you think the bloggers needed an exemption in the first place?

Re:Amendment I

[Woldry]

The airwaves are (artificially, by government fiat) limited resource, and as such, restrictions on how much someone can monopolize them to stump for a particular candidate might be justifiable. But the fact that someone has more time/energy/money/passion/wind to promote a particular candidate, party, position, point of view, or brand of toothpaste is completely irrelevant to what the Constitution says. If you think that the wording of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" needs to be amended to prevent abuses, you are welcome to initiate and pass a new amendment. I don't think so, myself, so be prepared to face at least one person's worth of opposition. Regardless, until the Constitution is amended, "Congress shall make no law" means "Congress shall make no law" -- and that includes campaign finance reform laws.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where to begin with this...

At least on Fox they have two sides for arguments...

Yeah. It's either wacko righty + even more wacko righty OR wacko righty + diluted inarticulate liberal (ie, Alan Colmes or Bob Beckel). Having straw man liberals to take crap from unfair questions is not showing two sides for the argument. It is not at all about getting to the truth of an issue, but creating the appearance of fairness in order to promote your agenda.

People that use this tend to think that there's nothing wrong with the government funded left-biased NPR, yet get all up in arms about Limbaugh starts shooting his fat mouth off.

You really want to talk about unfair government interference in public broadcasting [google.com]? You can start by explaining why Rush Limbaugh is on Armed Forces Radio but liberals critical of this administration get pulled [wfaa.com].

Is this really good for free speech?

[tmach]

If the government is going to start considering bloggers "journalists", this could end up being a huge roadblock to free speech.

In fact, free speech doesn't really apply to journalists. I'm speaking as someone who has worked in journalism for the past ten years. Let's say I hate Microsoft. As a journalist, if I wrote something like "Microsoft is crap and I'm not just saying that because Bill Gates likes to sleep with young boys and small furry animals" I would be in a load of trouble. Sure, it's an obvious joke, but Gates would have me dragged into court in less time than it took Windows98 to flash a BSOD. Now I could argue satire, but unless I got lucky and had a jury full of Mac addicts, I would probably lose.

The example doesn't even need to be that extreme. News organizations have been sued for defamatory stories about corporations, even though everything in their story was accurate. Once upon a time, journalists could rely on the truth as their defense. This is not always the case anymore. You can be sued for defamation even if the facts are on your side, and you will lose if the jury sides against you.

The only so-called journalists who come close to getting away with things like that are tabloids, and they're being sued left and right. They're losing, too.

Add to that the fact that most bloggers aren't affiliated with big corporations or other entities with loads of cash. Most of them are regular people, who couldn't afford to defend themselves in court even if they were 100% accurate with everything they wrote.

Of course, I haven't talked about political speech, which IS what this ruling is all about. However, if the government really starts treating blogs like other journalistic media, it will have to apply the same standards to all of them. At the very least, blogs could eventually be vulnerable to the same legal actions as traditional media.

I guess what worries me the most is this: As a journalist, I am not at all free to say whatever it is I want to say--nor should I be. Some stories are so heavily "lawyered" to avoid lawsuits, they read like a Microsoft EULA. Most of us couldn't afford to have a legal team on retainer to protect ourselves. Even if we could, what kind of "freedom" is that?

ruling?

[kwoff]

Why are you calling a "Draft Advisory Opinion" by a commission a "ruling"?

Re:Why this is necessary

[Loopy]

Actually, they didn't champion it but they _did_ plan for it. Go read the Federalist Papers and pay particular attention to the passages related to human nature (which, really, is most of it). Hell, the first paper starts right in on it. To wit:

Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

They understood the pull of corruption in this environment (underpinned by basic group psychology trends) and specifically planned these papers and eventually the constitution based upon that understanding. To challenge otherwise is to misunderstand the entire raison d'etre of America.

Re:Free speech good, but bloggers AREN'T journalis

[mhearne]

"Oh wait, it's only "right-wing" views that have to be balanced."

If that's true, it's because only "right-wing" views exist. The old rule was that all polictical and controversial opinions had to be balanced. Now that the rule is gone, there only seems to be one view.

24 hour a day political harrangues do not constitute the presentation of political views anyway, it is propaganda, pure and simple. In other words, opposing views are censored.

One must wonder exactly who employs and scripts these carbon copy talk shows and their respective hosts.

Please see: http://www.serendipity.li/cda.html [serendipity.li] for some references to historical censorship in the United States.

Michael