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...'"

Oh, the dictators in power

[mi]

"...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity...'"

And yet, an anti-Kerry documentary was pulled off the air just over a year ago...

Re:Duh!

[deanj]

You need to re-read what I wrote.

The worst offenders of this are the morning shows on ABC, NBC and CBS. At least on Fox they have two sides for arguments... I can't even remember the last time they did that on the broadcast networks. You might not agree with what the other side says, but at least they have a chance to speak.

As for the "fairness doctrine" argument. 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. Both are biased, it's just that Limbaugh is up front about it. Just witness that hissy fit that NPR had when someone wanted to add some "balance" to them. Nina Totenberg, balanced? Juan Williams? Nope. You want fairness? Cut NPR's government funding, and let them make it in the free market. The good programs (like "Fresh Air", "Prarie Home Companion", "Car Talk", just to name three) will find good homes, on XM, or get syndicated the way other programs do.

At least when Fox throws Fred Barnes on a panel, they'll throw on Juan Williams or one of the left-biased NPR reporters. Have you seen that on the non-Sunday news programs? Nope.

As for the opinions talk shows.... it's free market, baby. People support want they want, and don't support what the don't want.

Re:Always the geek. Running the numbers...

[TheFlyingGoat]

I'm a conservative and I would agree with the original poster, that the Washington Post is biased to the right. It's not nearly as much as Fox News, but it's definitely there. The Wall Street Journal also slants to the right to some extent. I can't listen to Fox News any more than I can listen to CBS... the slant is just too much. Obvious bias in either direction is annoying.

However, I can read the Washington Post and WSJ without any problem. Same for our local ABC affiliate.

I invoketh the power of CleverNickName

[MattW]

http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2005/10/t he_myth.html [typepad.com]

Re:Always the geek. Running the numbers...

[Gryphn]

If the the above were actually true, Al Gore would be approaching the mid-point of his 2nd term.

Re:Amendment I

[rivenmyst137]

>Freedom of speech applies to political speech. Campaign finance laws are blatantly unconstitutional. This ruling is offensive because it implies that only established and recognized "press" entities qualify -- and the government, whose interest is markedly not neutral, gets to decide who is and isn't "press".

This argument is profoundly naive. Follow the bouncing ball, boys and girls:

The point of the first amendment was to allow dissent. Monarchs and other ruling parties had a bad habit of throwing people who disagreed with them in jail and engaging in all manner of insidious methods that attempted to shut them up. The Framers thought this was a bad thing in a democracy where the health of government depends on free debate of the issues, of which dissent is an integral part (you hear that, GW?). So, the very first amendment was designed to protect this right to the end of fostering free discussion.

But there's a problem. Not all speech is created equal. See, in order for people to hear what you're saying, you have to put it in some kind of medium. And media are private, for-profit entities, which means more money=more message. In fact, given that the total amount of effective media is limited (there are only so many channels and only so many primetime hours, for instance), people (or corporations, since the Supreme Court stupidly decided that legally they are people too) with lots and lots of money can drive up the price for media spots high enough that the spots/slots become totally inaccessible to smaller parties. Therefore, you get censoring in effect if not in law.

Point being, if you stick your libertarian little fingers in your ears and warble "LALALALALALALA!!!" as loud as you possibly can and refuse to take economic effects into account when considering free speech, you can end up with exactly the same quelling of dissent in effect as you would have had you outright made a law "abridging the freedom of the press."

Quit yer bitchin'.

I wish politicians would set up REAL blogs

[phorm]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians had to keep *real* daily logs. Like records of whom they met with, were bought a $200 luncheon from, and received $10,000 in 'contributions?'

Too bad the only ones they want to hold accountable are others...

Re:Amendment I

[The Journalist]

This ruling is offensive because it implies that only established and recognized "press" entities qualify -- and the government, whose interest is markedly not neutral, gets to decide who is and isn't "press".

Yes, yes and yes. This is the exact reason why a shield law is detrimental to journalism and why one cannot be effected: forcing the government to define "press" means the definitnon could be manipulated so that only pro-party outlets are recognized and other publications can have their staff thrown into prison for contempt of court et al for refusing to reveal a source.

The fact there isn't and hasn't been a shield law in the two hundred-odd years the United States has existed speaks volumes. Yes, a journalist can go to jail for refusing to reveal to the court the name of the source - but that's part of the risk. Journalists aren't exempt from the consequences of their actions, regardless of motivation and/or story content.

Their job is the disposal of information - and if publishing that information is illegal (leaked memos, anonymous tips, etc) and the journalist is under legal punishment, so be it.

Re:Always the geek. Running the numbers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... Put down the crack pipe. US media varies from right wing to borderline neo-fascist from a global perspective. That some agree occasionally with the democrats does not make them left-wing. the Democrats are onlyy slightly less right wing than the crackpots infesting the whitehouse.

Re:Amendment I

[mr_matticus]

Except that the Constitution is contradictory. It has made such laws and is empowered to do so. The Ninth Amendment says, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That means when your freedom infringes upon my freedom, someone has to decide who wins.

If everyone is absolutely free, there is no rule of law. There is also no state. There are the tyrants and there are the subjugated. The only person free under a strict, unexcepted, literal interpretation of the First Amendment is the strongest, fastest, loudest, or otherwise top dog within the borders of that decree.

The Constitution isn't amended for every exception and deviation (and doesn't need to be), and the document enables that. The government is granted the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for the execution of its vested powers, which includes guaranteeing safety and personal liberty.

That means the strongest players might suffer from having their branches chopped to prevent blocking the sun from smaller, weaker trees. There are implicit limits on freedom in ANY state government; everything else is a matter of degrees.

Re:Always the geek. Running the numbers...

[7Prime]

I'm a Liberal, and I read the Post daily. I think, however, that the news media probably, as a whole, tends to have a leaning (I wouldn't go as far to say bias), toward the left simply because (and this is not meant to gauge conservative few points) the idea of empassionately assessing multipul viewpoints tends to be a process championed more by progressive ways of thinking. But the heart of it, I think the Post, whether left or right, practices GOOD journalism. The job of a journalist is to be a voice of communication for the people as a whole, so theoretically, a very good news source could position itself in such a way, that everyone thinks it's on their side. I'm pretty surprised, and actually a bit glad, to see conservatives think that the Post reflects more their views, because I think it reflects mine. Of course, that's not the point of journalism, but it feels that, at some level, they've earned the trust of a lot of people on both sides, which is very important.

My number one news source, however, is the News Hour. I don't watch network TV news: CNN is filth, CBS, NBC, and ABC are fluff (even if everyone says they're left leaning, I don't care, they lost THIS liberal), and FOX is made up of a bunch of neoconservative lobbiests—seriously, half of their stuff is made up of former conservative political advisors... Yes, I'm looking at you, Bill Kristol! The News Hour, and the other PBS news shows (Washington Week, Now, and Charlie Rose) feel like the only TV news that doesn't talk to me like I'm in 6th grade, and doesn't try to compress complicated events into 1 minute soundbytes. And when I watch news, I don't need to be entertained. I'm honestly excited and interested in learning about events at hand. Tell it to me straight. PBS is the only one that really does this anymore, the rest is just entertainment.