Customer Reviews

We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Scott Gant proposes journalistic privilege be extended to all who perform journalistic duties and not limited to professional newspaper, television, and radio journalists. In the process he gives an excellent review of the present state of journalism, how we got here, and where he thinks we might be going. Gant explores the legal precedents and ramifications of a variety of journalistic privileges. He focuses on how the expansion of Internet blogger-journalist activities is changing the face of investigative and commentary journalism. At a time when the mainstream-news topics are decided by fewer and fewer people due to one news titan merger after another, the freelance, independent, Internet blogger is providing a much-needed balance. He convinced me that the importance of protecting ones sources, of gaining access to governmental events, of exercising freedom of speech, is not diminished if an investigative journalist provides his information to the public on a blog rather than in the newspaper. The book drags a bit due to a repetitive style that could have been cleared up by a savvy editor, but the topic and the arguments discussed are especially important at a time when civil liberties are so threatened in the post-9/11 era.

In today's digital age of inexpensive and accessible media production and distribution means, it is clear that "We're All Journalists Now."

The book of this title by Scott Gant explores the current era's transition in journalism and the laws associated with the changing times. Gant's book examines today's definition of "journalist" and to whom journalistic rights ought to be afforded. There are many well done elements of his book, ranging from its historical accounts, to modern day examples, to its strong central message and arguments. This is an excellent book for a classroom discussion, as its message has many points that can be debated. While the author's position is at times questionable, this is a book that should be read. "We're All Journalists Now" is a worthwhile, thought-provoking work.

The benefits of this book are ample. Gant stays on-message well and his main points are consistently supported throughout the book: First, that "press" rights should be granted based upon the act of journalism rather than a media-organization affiliation (p. 86); second, that "the legal framework for allocating press rights and privileges is not keeping up with the pace of change"(p. 136). In addition, Gant does well to provide a full-circle historical account of the press - from the independent penny papers prepared by the people (p. 15), to corporate-driven media conglomerates (p. 20), to citizen created blogs (p.24). He investigates the ways in which "journalism is returning to its status as an activity rather than a profession" (p. 136).

Credit should also be given to Gant for his use of legal examples to highlight his message that there should be a consistent, modern system of protection for journalists. His examples range from the precedent-setting Branzburg v. Hayes case of 1972 which "gave rise to more questions than it answered" (p. 64), to possible modern-day "shield law legislation in the 110th Congress" (p. 155).

Gant shines with a well-structured argument on page 84. He offers an evaluation of licensing the press, wherein he provides the pros and cons given by Justices and offers subsidiary information based on the addition of technological developments. Due to the fact that anyone can engage in journalism in today's age, Gant concludes that: "If the Court reexamines the nature of press freedom, what is crucial, is that it recognize that any special `press' rights conferred by the First Amendment must be based on activity, not status" (p. 86). His fully-formed arguments are a pleasure to read, as they evaluate multiple sides of the issue.

Nonetheless, while Gant's arguments and examples are clear, there is room for debate in some of his theories. Such room for debate can be seen as a pro or a con to the book: A pro in that it presents opportunities for critical thought and evaluation, and a con because a non-critical reader may simply read it and agree with his questionable messages. From the perspective of a reviewer, this is a pro. There are many wonderful opportunities to engage in questioning the author. This is an excellent book for which a critical essay could be written; some readers may find themselves siding with Gant's adversaries. Following are two examples of Gant's opinions that welcome debate:

First, Gant cites that there is "an artificial distinction between professional journalists and everyone else" (p. 34) and sees a "need for reevaluation at all levels of government of the circumstances in which special benefits are extended to those we deem journalists, and denied to everyone else" (p. 90). One could argue that there will always be times in which certain rules apply to particular entities and not to others. If one views the government as a business, it is the norm that certain players will be granted privileges over others. Through such a lens, it makes sense that perks would be granted to someone serving the best-interests of the company. A hotel hoping for a great editorial review will offer a complimentary stay with all the bells and whistles for someone who writes for a popular travel publication; however, that same hotel may not offer any deals to someone who claims to be a journalist but has an unknown blog and no resume. It is natural for the government to act in its best interest, as any business would. Nonetheless, Gant finds it "troubling" that "only those associated with traditional news organizations are legitimate, and entitled to those special privileges" (p. 116). He also describes these selective preferences as "unfair" (p. 126). This, again, seems to be an open line for criticism using the old adage that "life's not fair." Gant also takes issue with the fact that a "caste system" has evolved in journalism (p. 136). To this, one could argue that the world is comprised of systems of haves and have-nots. Despite working in the same industry, employees are not granted the same luxuries as their company's CEO. Similarly, within universities, graduate and undergraduate students are not granted admittance into the same honor societies.

As a second example, Gant calls it "unfortunate" that the White House is considering ways to "tighten up the press credentialing process" (p. 107). In contrast, it could be debated that a tightening of press credentials is not a bad idea in this age wherein everyone is a journalist. Gant believes that the act of journalism is the sole requirement that should be considered for citizen journalists to be on the same playing field as learned professional journalists. However, Gant briefly admits in his conclusion that "as for the `new media,' much of it is junk" (p. 200). This assessment provides ammunition for a critical reader to rightly ask: "Should someone who produces junk really be allowed behind the scenes of the White House or granted such special privileges? Should they be granted trustworthy rights purely because they engage in the act of journalism?" Albeit, Gant believes an "over-extension of preferences is far preferable to denying press privileges" (p. 179).

In conclusion, "We're All Journalists Now" is a thought provoking work and offers an excellent foundation for debate or classroom discussions. It is a worthwhile read for those looking to gain perspective on the transitioning media in today's digital age. Gant provides a consistent argument while offering insightful background information on the media and government policies relating to journalism. This book is best read, and most enjoyable, when read with a critical eye.

College-level collections strong in either journalism and news history or social issues need WE'RE ALL JOURNALISTS NOW: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE PRESS AND RESHAPING OF THE LAW IN THE INTERNET AGE. It charts the unprecedented rise of blogging and different forms of both reporting and readership, surveys how traditional venues from TV to newspapers are struggling to achieve both identity and validity in the wake of these non-traditional journalist efforts, and considers both social and legal challenges to free speech and writing. The author is an attorney and constitutional scholar: this combined experience lends to a powerful assessment of changes in how information is disseminated and processed.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

If it's hard to imagine a book on the history of media in the US and the legal issues arising from the impact of the internet on said media being fascinating or even, I kid you you not, fun - think again. Because both are descriptive of "We're All Journalists Now."

The book is like a novel in that it reads with such a flowing style. Which is high praise coming from a lawyer about another lawyer. In other words, there is no legalize here and the book is clearly written for the lay person.

Which is not to say that "We're All Journalists Now" isn't chalk full of information and analysis. It is. I just can't ever remember finishing a non-fiction book so quickly where I learned so much. And it doesn't hurt that the issues surrounding the transformation of our media are becoming among the most important facing the country.

Sounds like a great development but only time will tell if we will be served with more and better quality information.

In this absorbing and important work, lawyer and scholar Scott Gant depicts how the evolution of the news media has outpaced our legal system. In prose that is admirably clear, Gant explains how our current conceptions of journalists, and the legal protections they are due, are outdated and even harmful to our republic. The proliferation of citizen journalists who cover the news with seriousness, depth, and fairness--and the increasing needs of a public which reads and depends upon their work--should move our society into expanding the reach of legal protections currently only available to paid, professional, "mainstream" journalists.

WE'RE ALL JOURNALISTS NOW combines the very best traditions of writing on public affairs and law: it is topical and up to date, while offering deep insights that should inform our public discussions about citizen journalists for years to come. Gant's writing is logical, accurate, and careful, while still readable, engaging, and convincing. His points always hit hard while remaining fair and on the mark. Gant's arguments are so tightly and effectively rendered, that the reader may be surprised to find him or herself coming to the same dramatic conclusions he does: our society needs nothing short of a revolution in how we think of and safeguard the enterprise of journalism.

WE'RE ALL JOURNALISTS NOW is mandatory reading for anyone interested in the current state of journalism, the news media and the internet, and the evolution of U.S. law. Few books of the last decade are so well positioned to make a lasting impact on public affairs, and, in particular, our debates about the First Amendment and how we gather and absorb news. Read Gant's book, and become part of this conversation.

Bruce Peabody, Associate Professor of Political Science

My original comment was censored, probably because I was a little over-zealous -- I've toned this one down.

This idea of giving the "reporter's privilege" -- i.e., the right to hide the identities of confidential sources -- to BVD-clad bloggers (I call them "BVD-clad" because Hugh Hefner considers pajamas to be formal wear) is silly. Professional journalists have the "reporter's privilege" so that they can make credible promises of confidentiality to their sources. But what do BVD-clad bloggers need the reporter's privilege for? They don't need it in their jobs. They can't make credible promises of confidentiality anyway because they don't have press credentials. What is so special about blogging anyway? Why should bloggers be given something that, say, a publisher of a small private newsletter can't get? And why should BVD-clad bloggers be granted the reporter's privilege when they won't accept a "fairness doctrine," i.e., a law prohibiting arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments? Such a fairness doctrine would help assure that the blogs are fair and as accurate and reliable as possible. BVD-clad bloggers just want special privileges without responsibilities -- they want the reporters privilege but don't want a fairness doctrine. And with a reporter's privilege for bloggers, crooks are going to start blogging so that they won't have to testify against their partners in crime.

How can we even talk about giving the reporter's privilege to BVD-clad bloggers when professional journalists are frequently denied the privilege? The introduction to Gant's book gives numerous examples of where professional journalists have been denied the privilege.

In an interview, Gant suggested the following arbitrary, discriminatory rules for choosing BVD-clad bloggers who would get the privilege:

"It would be defensible, in my view, to limit privileges to those who add some original analysis or content to what they disseminate to the public, which would exclude those who merely aggregate content created entirely by others. In the rare situations where there are physical constraints on the number of people who can receive a preference - such as limited seating in a courtroom - the government can use a number of neutral criteria to decide which journalists will receive it, such as a lottery system or first-come, first-served rule."

This book has been out for some time but has attracted only four customer reviews. That speaks for itself.