At the end of October the House of Representatives passed the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010, which is all about protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources. In the usual jargon, it’s a “journalist shield law”.

Australia was apparently the only major democracy without such a law in place or in progress, so it’s welcome. And, in the words of the new Greens MP for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, “this bill is a good example of how all parties can collaborate on a worthwhile initiative in a way that would not have happened without the currently composed parliament.”

Bandt continued:

To facilitate its passage, the Greens will support the bill in its current form in the House, but I indicate now that we will seek minor amendments to it in the Senate. In particular, we believe that it should be made explicit that the bill covers bloggers, citizen journalists and documentary filmmakers, and that the privileges provided by the bill cover anyone engaged in the process of journalism, no matter who they are or in what medium they publish.

Well I reckon it’s great that the new law might cover more people, not just those who work as employee-journalists in the industrial media factories. It’s great that it might be technology- and medium-neutral. But…

What the heck is a “blogger” or a “citizen journalist”?

As the bill currently stands, the definitions of “journalist” and “news medium” are already quite broad. In Schedule 1, section 126G:

informant means a person who gives information to a journalist in the normal course of the journalist’s work in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium

journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium

news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news

My understanding is that “observations on news” is meant to cover the analysis and opinion (“op-ed”) that typically appears in newspapers and current affairs programs. But many blog posts would also fit that description.

Heck, you could even argue that my Twitter stream is a news medium because it contains news (of what me and others are doing) and observations thereupon, conveyed to “a section of the public”.

What I don’t know is whether “in the normal course of that person’s work” implies that a journalist has to be paid. Any media lawyers want to have a go at that?

In my view, “journalism” and “blogging” are two activities amongst many that end up producing certain kinds of media outputs. Whether you’re paid or not is a separate issue.

As I’ve expounded at length before, journalism is the job of producing the media objects needed by industrial-age media factories. That’s why I love John E McIntyre’s description of his work at The Baltimore Sun as sub-editor — “copy editor” in his American English — as “a shift at the paragraph factory”. On his blog.

Blogging evolved in a different environment. It produces a more fluid kind of media output — one that involves the readers in discussion. Indeed, I’m one of the people who thinks that the dialog is what makes it blogging — as opposed to an essay or a polemic.

There are other definitions, of course. I won’t list them all here except one. The idea that a proper capital-J journalist is a member of their professional association. In Australia that’s the Media and Entertainment Arts Alliance. Like most professions it has a Code of Ethics.

Is a Code of Ethics what turns writing about current events into “journalism”?

Labor MP Graham Perrett supported the bill but was concerned about extending protection to those unruly bloggers:

I do support this bill and I support shield laws which provide a presumption in favour of journalists privilege. However, I believe that this bill could be improved by providing an expanded definition for ‘journalist’ or ‘reporter’… As an additional safeguard, this definition enshrined in legislation would ensure that rogues — who do not uphold the journalists’ code of ethics — are not able to hide their shonky reporting behind shield laws. In terms of the modern day, it is easy to see people like [veteran political journalist] Laurie Oakes and the others who sit up in the journalists gallery as journalists, but there is then quite a continuum down to the perhaps aggrieved blogger who puts out something every week…

I would suggest to the Senate that the definition of journalist include some additional words. If we go to the 126G definition where journalist is defined, I would suggest that it also include ‘a person who ascribes to the journalist code of ethics as published and codified by Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance’. This would be a narrower definition that would still cover the intent of the member for Denison’s legislation.

Perrett isn’t necessarily suggesting every blogger become a member of the MEAA. But I make two observations for now.

1. The MEAA’s codification of journalistic ethics is not necessarily the only view of how things should work. I’ve nothing against the MEAA. Far from it! But I wouldn’t like to see them enshrined in legislation as the only view of how the media should operate.
2. There are plenty of MEAA members who fail to live up to this high ethical standard. Witness any episode of ABC TV’s Media Watch. This test for ethical behaviour fails in practice.

When the recent changes were made to Australia’s Freedom of Information laws, it was proposed to grant journalists the first five hours of decision-making time free of charge. But as the new Information Commissioner, Professor John McMillan told iTnews.com.au:

There was a debate about whether someone was a journalist or not for the purposes of the Act. They resolved that by giving everybody FOI free for the first 5 hours.

The can of worms was not opened on that occasion. But it looks like it’s going to be this time. This will be an interesting can of worms to open. Good luck, Senators.

I’ve already added my two bits, mostly referring back to my post Why The Greens won’t win Marrickville from 2007.

On Friday I recorded an interview with The Greens’ Senator Scott Ludlam about the leaking of a “secret” Internet censorship blacklist. A few quotes were used in my Crikey piece. Here’s the full audio, just under 5 minutes.

Ludlam reckons Conroy should dump the filter trials and ask the industry for advice. After all, there’s 20 years of Internet expertise out there.

“Ask the question of the online community and the child protection community more generally ‘What’s the best way to protect children online?’, whether it’s from being poached in chatrooms, coming across [adult] material, or falling victim to some of the syndicates that are out there — all of the areas which net filtering won’t even go close to touching,” he said.

Senator Stephen Conroy’s office has reminded me that there is a consultative committee. Still, it does seem backwards to be trialling a specific technical solution before it’s been determined that it’s an appropriate place to be spending the money.

This is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Australia Licence. You may reproduce, distribute and remix this work, as long as it is for non-commercial purposes, you credit Stilgherrian, and you licence any derivative the same way. Please contact me for any commercial usage.

Here’s my letter to my federal MP Anthony Albanese (pictured), which this very moment is rolling off his fax machine.

I’m hoping that Mr Albanese will be able to have some impact on this because he is both Minister for Infrastructure — the Internet is key infrastructure, right? — and Leader of the House of Representatives.

I know that he understands human rights issues because … well, us Marrickville folks just do understand these things, right Anthony? And you certainly knew how to stick it into John Howard when he demonstrated cluelessness.

Like Mark Newton, I also release this letter into the public domain.

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Federal Member for Grayndler
334A Marrickville Road
Marrickville NSW 2204

Internet censorship is poor policy: filtering trials must stop at once

Good morning Mr Albanese,

I write to you, my elected representative, to express my deepest concerns about the government’s current plans for censoring the Internet.

Respected network engineer Mark Newton, who I consider to be one of the pioneers of the commercial Internet in this country, has powerfully detailed his own concerns in a letter to his local MP, Kate Ellis. I too would like to see the government provide specific responses to the issues he raises — rather than the attempted bullying which has come from Senator Stephen Conroy’s office.

Where is the demonstrated need for an online censorship regime? Where is the evidence that it is technologically feasible? Where is the demonstration that is it effective? Where is the demonstration that the stated potential side effects can be mitigated?

I have already speculated in Crikey that the Rudd government is only continuing with the filtering trials, which were set up by the Howard government, to placate Senators Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon. I do understand that to secure their vote on other matters the government needs to toss them a bone occasionally. But…

The fundamental human right of free and open communication is far, far too important to use as a bargaining chip for Senate votes.

Last week’s Senate Estimates showed that The Greens understand this. Senator Conroy’s responses show that he cannot defend the trials on their merits — and more worryingly that he, and by extension the Australian Labor Party, does not understand.

During the 2007 election campaign the Prime Minister said many times that his government would be one of “evidence-based policy”. The evidence clearly shows that Labor’s policy on Internet censorship is wrong.

The only rational outcome is for these trials to cease immediately, before any more taxpayers’ money is wasted.

I welcome you response.

Regards,

Stilgherrian

Should you wish to print and send this to your local MP too, here’s a PDF copy, as well as the PDF of Mark Newton’s letter.

The quickest way to find your local MP is to hit openaustralia.org, and enter your postcode. You can then click through to his or her website for the contact details.

There was a story earlier this year that the gaming industry is now bigger than the film industry. That’s only true if you compare the whole gaming industry with just film box-office sales and ignore DVD sales and rentals, exports and other non-cinema income. Still, it does make a point: gaming is a lot bigger than most people realise.

The gaming industry wants the same tax breaks as the film industry. I figure that to be consistent, yes, either they both get these breaks or they both don’t.

There’s a bloody great aircraft carrier in Sydney Harbour. The whole city’s stopping to gawk at it. One of the most potent, visible symbols of Australia’s alliance with the US — and, by extension, our involvement in the War on Foreign Men with Beards and, you know, that Iraq thing — is sitting right there in front of us. So how does Senator Kerry Nettle use this opportunity?

Senator Kerry Nettle reacts to the Big Bad N-word with all the predictability of a cuckoo clock. Senator Kerry Nettle reckons us Sydneysiders have “a right to know” whether USS Kitty Hawk is carrying nuclear weapons. If it is, Senator Kerry Nettle reckons any accident on the ship could be a “catastrophe”.

No shit, Sherlock! It’s a goddam warship! It’s chock full’o jet fuel, ammunition, lubricants, rocket fuel, missile warheads and a thousand other things that are either as toxic as all get-up or go boom. Got that? Warship. So a couple of nukes buried down in some well-protected hidey-hole is the least of our worries.

And besides, Senator Kerry Nettle, what do you reckon? A US aircraft carrier, based out of Yokosuka, Japan, near that place, oh… what is it again? Yeah, North Korea. And with the job of…? Oh yeah, act as the core of an independent task force in the event of global war, whether conventional or nuclear.

Uhuh.

So, Senator Kerry Nettle, do you reckon the Kitty Hawk might be carrying perhaps just one or two nuclear weapons? Maybe just little ones? Yeah, me too. I reckon there just might be a couple’o nukes here.

While we don’t have a “right to be told” — hey, this is America we’re talking about, they’re answerable only to God — we do have a right to use our brains and figure it out for ourselves.

Or, come to think of it, see if that other Greens guy, Andrew Wilkie, has something more contemporary to say. Apparently he knows about stuff.

But it won’t happen. And here’s why…

Earlier tonight, my post-gym dinner-and-drinks led me to the Carlisle Castle Hotel. It was a quiet night, and my gym partner and I were almost alone in the front bar until Fiona Byrne and her entourage turned up after a candidates’ forum at the Newtown Community Centre.

I thought I recognised her. Despite The Greens being all for the environment, they’re always the first to visually pollute the neighbourhood with posters of their candidates’ photos . And I heard someone introduce “Derek” as “the campaign manager”. So I figured I was in the company of The Candidate and Her Team.

Here’s what I noticed, as they debauched themselves on two schooners of Cascade Light:

• Derek reckons they only need to convince 3000 more voters to mark The Greens as first preference, and Fiona’s in. I reckon that’s probably right, but does Antony Green agree?
• Despite me mentioning that I was once a media producer (and therefore election-savvy) and a local voter, Derek didn’t even bother introducing The Candidate. They all seemed more interested in talking to each other than the voter sitting in front of them.
• I read every single piece of paper that comes through my mailbox, and I hadn’t even heard of this candidates’ forum.
• They simply didn’t look hungry for victory. They didn’t have the body language and demeanour of winners.

Way back when I worked for the ABC (yes, the 1980s), I happened to meet Michael Dukakis, the former Governor of Massachusetts and the Democrats’ candidate for President of the USA against Bush I.

When I was introduced, Dukakis looked me straight in the eye, grasped my hand, smiled — and for a moment he made me feel like the most important person in the universe. I knew I was in the presence of a professional, and I wanted to hear what he had to say.

Sure, a moment later the spell was broken, and we got on with recording the interview. But he was good, very good. And while I don’t expect the local candidate in an Australian state election to have the same charisma as a potential POTUS… Jesus, people, at least try!

And while you’re at it, look like you could actually run the state of New South Wales, instead of a being just another whingey lobby group on bicycles.

You’ve got six weeks. Focus, focus.