Is pretending to be a journalist legal?

[Thought Hammer]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My intentions are benign and innocent at heart, but I know that there have been cases of people posing as policemen and journalists to commit frauds and other crimes.

(I want to interview an exclusive group for a research paper but they only talk to people with press credentials)

I don't want to commit a crime!

 

[quincy]

Pretending to be anything you're not can get you in trouble, even if the reasons behind your ruse are benign and innocent.

Whether you will be able to gain access to this particular "exclusive group" can depend in large part on who is in this group and why it is exclusive and your reasons for wanting access. For example, trying to gain access to President Obama and his family by pretending to be a journalist can get you in a whole mess of trouble, and interviewing them for a research paper even with legitimate press credentials can be next to impossible.

If the group is not that exclusive, and interviews with members of this group are vital to your research paper, and the research paper can be seen as a legitimate one supported by a school or a university or a recognized organization, then there are a few things you could try.

If this group has a PR team, you could contact PR directly and request interviews. But your research paper, and all of the facts surrounding the need for the interviews, has to be of some importance and with some pretty good outside support in order to gain access to someone or ones who ordinarily will not grant such access.

If this research paper of yours is for a college or university, the college or university may be able to wrangle a connection for you. Contact your professor to see if and how this could be arranged.

And the last option I can think of is, you could go to your local newspaper and explain your research paper to them. Tell them you need to interview a particular group of people but cannot get access.

Newspapers rarely offer "temporary press credentials" to non-journalists, for security and liability reasons, although I have known papers in the past that have given passes to high school students, allowing them to interview visiting "rock stars" and celebrities for a story with a "special slant."

If the newspaper, however, sees an interview with this exclusive group as having some interesting aspect to it that could be turned into a story of local interest for the paper, a paper may agree to have you accompany a news reporter on an interview with this group, or at least use your questions in an interview. What a paper will do, if anything, will depend on the particular paper, on who exactly you are, and on how the newspaper views your research paper.

But, whatever you try, I definitely do NOT recommend you try to pretend you are something you are not in order to get your interviews. Not a wise idea at all.

 

[tranquility]

But, what is a "journalist"? The OP could have a blog and use Publisher to make a "Press Pass" up from the name of the blog and use the pass by showing it to whoever and not get in any trouble.

Saying you are a reporter for the Times or use a press pass which looks like a government issued one or otherwise misrepresent yourself is where the potential for trouble comes.

 

[quincy]

What is a journalist? Well, by definition, a journalist is one whose occupation is journalism.

I agree that anyone can start a blog and call themselves a journalist and perhaps even issue themselves a press pass, to represent the blog. But an ordinary blog press pass will probably not be press credentials recognized by most, and a blog press pass will probably not get the ordinary blogger access to an exclusive group that traditionally restricts access.

As a note on calling oneself a journalist when one is not: Journalists are often near the BOTTOM of the Gallop poll's annual list of most trusted professionals (attorneys traditionally fall lower on the list than journalists - many times running even with politicians).

In other words, if someone wants to pretend to be something, there are better things to pretend to be than a journalist or an attorney. Try nurse, instead.

 

[tranquility]

Of course, this is the debate between the blogosphere and the dinosaur media. Others might define a journalist as:

A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues.

1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

A journalist is a person who practices journalism.

Reporters are one type of journalist. They create reports as a profession for broadcast or publication in mass media such as newspapers, television, radio, magazines, documentary film, and the Internet. Reporters find the sources for their work; the reports can be either spoken or written; they are generally expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good.

Although, I would concur the OP *probably* not be covered by the CA shield laws.

 

[quincy]

Who is or is not a "journalist" will generally be defined by the states in the states' shield laws. The states often vary significantly in their definitions.

In Alabama, for example, a person can be considered a journalist if the person is "a person engaged in, connected with, or employed on any newspaper, radio broadcasting station or television station, while engaged in a newsgathering capacity," which appears on its face to exclude most bloggers. This definition is echoed in the wording of many other states' laws.

On the other hand, in Michigan, a journalist is "a reporter or other person who is involved in the gathering or preparation of news for broadcast or publication," and this definition appears to cover both traditional and nontraditional journalists (ie. bloggers). And some 6th Circuit lower federal court decisions have applied the shield law privilege to nontraditional reporters (but these have set no precedent).

Last year, by the way, one of Michigan's senators was the single sponsor of a bill that would establish in the state a government board for the registration of state journalists, to provide the public with an idea of who was doing the reporting of their news and where the news was coming from.

To register, a journalist would have to, among other things, have a degree in journalism or experience equal to a degree, submit writing samples, AND HAVE GOOD MORAL AND ETHICAL CHARACTER. Other than providing a few good laughs for journalists in the state and the discussed belief that no one would be able to register , a bill such as this would not pass constitutional muster. In fairness to the Senator, he did propose that registration would be voluntary, and his purpose with the bill was mostly to spark debate.

As for the "dinosaur media" comment, although the last few years have been awfully rough on traditional newspapers throughout the country, they are adjusting to the internet age and recovering from the horrible economy which forced the closure of many papers - and this recovery is good news.

 

[tranquility]

Who is or is not a "journalist" will generally be defined by the states in the states' shield laws.

Only for the purpose of shield laws.

Last year, by the way, one of Michigan's senators was the single sponsor of a bill that would establish in the state a government board for the registration of state journalists, to provide the public with an idea of who was doing the reporting of their news and where the news was coming from.

I wonder if the bill was sponsored by bloggers or by big media? Such a bill is a part of the problem. It is NOT designed to protect the consumer of "news" but to protect moneyed interests. The First Amendment works best with a marketplace of ideas. Not with governmental approved voices. I'm glad it was offered just to spark debate.

As for the "dinosaur media" comment, although the last few years have been awfully rough on traditional newspapers throughout the country, they are adjusting to the internet age and recovering from the horrible economy which forced the closure of many papers - and this recovery is good news

One of my greatest joys through life was to have a hot cup of coffee and read the newspaper. I would turn it page by page and look (not necessarily read) everything. I still "read" at least three every day. Yet, it seems I spend less and less time on them as I already have read the news and the commentary from various sides and perspectives online by the time I get the paper. The comics suck now too. What we need is some micropayment system where the news aggregators (Dig, reddit, instapundit, fark, Drudge etc.) have to pay some tiny amount to the originator for each link clicked. They can then have their own business model of advertising, subscription or user micropayment to get paid for their efforts.

 

[quincy]

No, not only for the purposes of shield laws - how a journalist is defined by a state can potentially open up to bloggers and citizen journalists the other privileges offered the traditional media.

The Supreme Court addressed the First Amendment's freedom of the press and to whom exactly it applies in 1938's Lovell v Griffin, 304 US. The Court said that freedom of the press is "a fundamental personal right...not confined to newspapers and periodicals...The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

And this was echoed in Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US, 1972.

The Court in Branzburg, in an attempt to define who is and who is not a "journalist" for the purposes of traditional press privileges, said: "[It is] necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualify for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods."

That said, courts today have not always been kind to blogger/reporters. You can check out Too Much Media v Hale, a 2010 New Jersey suit, for just one of many cases where courts have not recognized bloggers as journalists under state law (although this may not be such a terrific example ). Isn't "videoblogger" Josh Wolf from your great state of California, tranq? Didn't the California courts find he did not meet the definition of journalist under California law? I could be wrong.

The bill introduced by Senator Bruce Patterson, by the way, was a single sponsor bill, with Patterson being the single sponsor. I am not sure anyone else wanted to touch it.

 

[tranquility]

Hale was shield law question as were the issues surrounding Wolf. The Supreme Court cases seem to make my case as to the inherent problem of defining what a "journalist" or the Press is.

To bring the question around to what was asked, the requirements of what a "journalist" are are so slight that pretending to be one is probably not a pretense. If one wants the protection of the shield laws, one should look to the state-specific statute and see if the actions of the person apply.

 

[quincy]

Ha. "...pretending to be one is probably not a pretense." I think that pretty much sums up where this country stands today on defining who is and who is not a journalist.

So tranquility, under your theory that everyone is a journalist, a theory that shows some support in Supreme Court opinions, Thought Hammer could say he is a journalist with impunity. And, as long as he is not seeking shield law protection where he could run up against a more stringent state definition of journalist, I agree he could probably call himself a journalist without legal consequence (if his purpose for doing so is not a nefarious one).

That still leaves the problem of Thought Hammer's press identity and press credentials. Even if Thought Hammer calls himself a journalist, the label alone does not give Thought Hammer press credentials and access to the exclusive group he hopes to interview.

Forging press credentials to indicate he is working with or employed by a traditional media group is a definite and illegal no-no. And creating a blog and a blog press pass to go along with it will probably not get Thought Hammer access to much of anyone.

So, I will stand by my earlier suggestions. These will avoid any (real or perceived) deceit on Thought Hammer's part. Whether he can actually be granted interviews for his research paper, however, will probably depend most on who exactly Thought Hammer is and what type of research paper he is working on (and for whom).

 

[tranquility]

Forging press "credentials" would be a crime. Places like the Olympics, sports arenas, special events and politicians have people go through a special vetting process to issue their own credential which is the only one they will accept for access.

But, I think we already agreed on that. As I wrote:

The OP could have a blog and use Publisher to make a "Press Pass" up from the name of the blog and use the pass by showing it to whoever and not get in any trouble.

Saying you are a reporter for the Times or use a press pass which looks like a government issued one or otherwise misrepresent yourself is where the potential for trouble comes.

 

[quincy]

I agree that we agree.