I personally thought the second chapter of We’re All Journalists Now was not nearly as good of a read as the first chapter. While the first chapter used current examples of what is being done by citizen journalist, the second chapter was like reading out of a mass comm. law book. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but is not the type of thing I like to find in a non-textbook.
In the second chapter Scott Gant gives you a rundown of the history of press and the first amendment. He talked about Justice Stewart’s opinion after the Branzburg case and how it was wrong. I would have to agree with Gant on how there is no way you can consider a shield for only organized media. It would leave the citizen journalist with no protection. The major problem I had with this chapter is how Gant seems to put all hope of a shield on the Supreme Court. It is obvious to me how the Supreme Court does not want to take on the responsibility of creating a common law in regards to the Press Clause. Gant only mentions Congress and I think it would be their job to make the law and then the Court can decide if it is constitutional or not. It should not be solely the Supreme Courts responsibility. They should be able to tweak the law to make it better.
4 comments:
Trent: Hah! Leave it to me to find a non-textbook that reads like a textbook. (Sorry about that.) But you are getting your thoughts in line regarding who a journalist is and who should write a shield law.
Congress is supposed to take up the issue again this year..but, well, we'll see. I have the feeling it will be more concerned with the elections.
I agree with the second chapter not being as good as the first. I started the book thinking "Wow this is an easy, more interesting read." Then I got to the second chapter.
But I think that background is needed in the book so we can understand his point about citizen journalism better.
Yeah I felt like it was a textbook too. I really liked your comment on the end about them being able to tweak the law a little, it would make more sense.
Trent,
I agree with you about the second chapter. It took me about four times longer to get through the reading than the first chapter. It seemed to drag on forever, and just kept coming to the same conclusion. Gant made it very obvious that the Supreme Court had no interest in taking a case about the issue, or at least didn't plan on it if they were interested. The chapter kind of left me thinking, what's the point of all this then?
Post a Comment