A Journalist in Wolf's Clothing?

On April 3, 2007, blogger, freelance journalist and SFSU alumnus Josh Wolf was released from the Federal Correction Institution in Dublin, California after earning the dubious distinction of serving the longest prison term for protecting journalist sources in the United States. As a publisher of a blog that documents protests and progressive activist events, Wolf captured videotaped footage of an anarchists' anti-G8 protest that took place on July 8, 2005 in San Francisco.

The United States Attorney believed that Wolf's footage contained information that could be used to identify perpetrators of violent acts that took place at the anarchist rally, including the assault of a police officer and the arson of a police vehicle. The United States District Court empaneled a grand jury and the FBI subsequently subpoenaed Wolf, ordering him to turn the footage over and testify in front of a grand jury. Wolf refused, citing press freedoms and his journalistic privilege to protect sources, and was eventually jailed for contempt of court. At the time of his release, Wolf had served 226 days in jail, breaking the previous mark of a journalist's prison term for protecting source materials by 58 days.

One of the problems posed by the Josh Wolf case is the absence of a legal standard and definition of what journalism looks like and who can be considered to be a journalist. In an interview for Frontline, Wolf explains: "I describe myself a lot of ways. I'm a journalist. I'm a documentary filmmaker. I've made some narrative films. I'm an activist. I wear a lot of hats . . . I'm also a video blogger." California, like most other states, has a media shield law that confers special protections to journalists. Self declarations aside, the question remains: is what Wolf is doing accurately described as journalism?

In the Frontline interview, Wolf acknowledges this concern, stating that: "One of the critiques about me not being a journalist is that I'm not objective. It's pretty clear what my politics are. But back when the First Amendment was written, when we guaranteed a free press, there was no such thing as objective journalism." While this question is better served by an historical debate over the intentions and meanings of the Constitution, it is important to note that Wolf seems to be making no claims to objectivity. Regardless of whether or not objective and impartial newsgathering and dissemination was established as a journalistic principle at the time of the Founding, it is undeniably an integral aspect of most professional codes of journalistic ethics both in the United States and abroad.

While going to jail for one's convictions and grand intellectual principles is admirable in any shape or form, and while a serious discussion about Wolf's 1st Amendment rights could be had outside of the ambit of a discussion about professional journalism but still within the realm of free speech, Wolf's case squarely calls into question the identity and definition of what journalism ought to be.

Should Wolf be considered to be a protected person under a media shield? Is it reasonable to suggest that activity that looks like journalism should always be exempt from some form of regulative control? Or should we be putting more pressure on the individuals who consider themselves to be journalists? Absent of some formal way of recognizing who and what journalism is, there are too many mixed messages freely propagated in the culture about the essential rights and freedoms of the citizens and of the press. Because this leaves the public with no definitive way of knowing what is and is not respectable and credible journalistic information, this ultimately functions as a profound disservice to the public interest.

For consideration, an article from the Fall 2006 issue of Media Ethics magazine brings to light three high profile cases of journalistic malpractice that have recently degraded the credibility of the media generally: Jayson Blair and the New York Times, Jack Kelley and USA Today, and Dan Rather and CBS News. In each case, in only slightly unique ways, the "professional journalists," who by all measures of the term would be covered by media shield laws, perpetrated fraud on the public and rendered gross journalistic malpractice. But what has changed? Aside from the fact that these journalists no longer work for the same institutions, many if not most journalists involved in scandals continue to practice as professional journalists in some respect. What guarantee does that give the public that news information of the future bears any resemblance to truth?

While it has always been agreed that the freedom of the press is one of the primary principles supporting the function of democratic self-government, the balancing act that determines what fits into the purview of press freedoms, and what does not, has always been a complicated and elusive task. While it is obvious that journalists require some protections that insulate their activities from the government's reach, it is not clear where to draw the line.