Sen. Feinstein: 'Real' Journalists Draw Salaries | Hacker News Reader

Sen. Feinstein: 'Real' Journalists Draw Salaries

techdirt.com

22 pointsshill21 comments

> The bill's definition of "journalist" seems straightforward enough.... "primary intent to investigate events and procure material"

well.. shoot... that whole investigate part sort of makes a lot of those so called "real" paid journalists not journalists after all. The fact that some people specifically use the term investigative journalism leads me to believe many don't do this. So they won't get protection now, right? :)

Too many snide jokes to be made about "Real" Senators. Must resist...

Thankfully, it's not up to her to decide. She's pretty much never had a real job, working in government since the 60s.

The US government has been making a huge issue of who is a "real" journalist as to ensure journalist protection does not happen spread to very articulate, well informed, level headed bloggers.

This is serious.

It sure is, which is why people should be asking what a real oversight committee member is. They're on the offensive because of exactly this, and they want to be able to control information dispersal by normal citizens and others. The way they want to do this is to have a kind of authorization for access which excludes the normal citizenry, amateur or freelance journalists.

When you listen to what the Obama Administration and Congress wants to change in light of the Snowden revelations, think of the aphorism, "the best defense is a good offense." Don't accept their framing, keep your eyes on the real issue: spying on US citizens.

Making it about salary is doubly interesting because it essentially means that the government can exercise its control over the journalist establishment via economic means.

Don't like the way the news is covering a certain topic, just threaten the economics of a newspaper or radio station with legislation. That would quickly trickle down from the top management responsible to shareholders to the editor in the form of silencing journalists on a topic that Washington disagrees with.

I wish senators had karma. Sometimes one of them "posts" something that makes me really just want to reach for the down arrow.

Feinstein suggested that the definition comprise only journalists who make salaries, saying it should be applied just to "real reporters."

In a debate about journalists, that was clueless, offtopic, and unhelpful.

In a way, this exists through public opinion, primarily approval ratings.

And true to the concept of imaginary internet points, clearly has no value. Feinstein is still a senator.

"I wish senators had karma"

They kind of do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections

Its the difference between saying "you make dumb comments" and "that was a dumb comment".

Real senators keep and serve the society's justice.

Real senators are not afraid of the transparency that's being championed by journalists who don't have salaries. (Fake senators prefer legislation that's written by lobbyists, contains thousands of pages filled with gifts to campaign donors, and isn't even read by any real senators before being voted into law.)

I'm not sure history supports that perspective. Traditionally, senators are the legislative body of the upper class, which has never been particularly charitable toward the rabble.

Excellent criteria. This should be a trivial one to game. Just created an LLC that pays a token salary to everyone that practices journalist in more novel forms like blogging.

If Steve Jobs can draw a $1 per year salary, so can journalists.

Hey, everyone in California, I have an idea: let's vote Feinstein out.

In all seriousness, it will depend on who runs against her, either in a Democratic primary or in the general election.

She often seems stodgy and clueless, but I can imagine _much_ worse...

I think this is actually not true. Anyone voted in to replace her would not have the seniority she has, and wouldn't be in charge of important subcommittees. In addition, if the person was a Republican, and the Senate still controlled by Democrats, they wouldn't be very effective.

> Anyone voted in to replace her would not have the seniority she has, and wouldn't be in charge of important subcommittees.

That is actually a fairly good reason to vote her out. She can do some real damage.

You need to be prepared to take risks. The Democrats have known for a long time now that they can get away with being a right wing party because liberals are terrified that a right-wing Republican candidate might win. Feinstein is not an exception to this.

Take a risk: vote third party. If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you'll keep getting evil.

And many of them not for much longer, given the general state of the industry. And are out of work journalists not allowed to work on stuff to try and get more work?

Sen. Feinstein makes douchey, inflammatory remark. News at 11.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com