First, Subpoena the Student Reporters

As Monica Davey reported on Sunday, the Medill Innocence Project, a part of the Northwestern University school of journalism, now finds itself the subject of prosecutorial scrutiny. Student reporters who have worked for the project, which has played a role in the release of 11 inmates and is led by David Protess, are being subpoenaed by Cook County prosecutors to give up their reporting materials.

Before a hearing next month for Anthony McKinney, who was convicted of fatally shooting a security guard in 1978, prosecutors have demanded that the university produce grades, grading criteria, class syllabus, expense reports and e-mail messages from the journalism students themselves. Among other notions, prosecutors have suggested that the students — who have already given the government videotapes and affidavits of critical witnesses — might have received better grades if they made their subjects seem innocent.

Mr. Protess said his students did not want to become “an arm of the government” by providing their notes and private exchanges. “It would destroy our autonomy,” he said. “We function with journalism standards and practices to guide our work.”

The Chicago Tribune wrote an article last Monday first revealing the request of the prosecution. A spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office suggested that it was only seeking information relevant to an coming hearing.

“They have material that’s relevant to the ongoing investigation,” she said. “And we should be entitled to that information.”

University officials have called the request overreaching and have vowed to fight the effort. Significant issues are at hand, including whether student journalists are covered by the federal shield law. As Nieman Journalism Lab recently reported, a version passed by the House would seem to offer scant protection:

“The term ‘covered person’ means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.”

Given that most student journalists don’t report for a living, they could be somewhat exposed, and it appears that an inquiry into the conviction of one man could lead to the investigation and potential sanction of many who took up his case.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

The wording of the House version might end up creating two classes of journalist, those protected under the law, and those left vulnerable to subpoenas and search warrants. Both can perform the same function, the only difference is whether they’re compensated for it, which seems a specious distinction, unrelated to the service or value delivered.

Consider the blogger who posts evidence of misconduct by public officials, of which there are a number of examples available online today. Police are obtaining search warrants to seize and examine the records, computer equipment and personal belongings of bloggers. Just one example-

//carlosmiller.com/2009/04/02/phoenix-police-raid-home-of-blogger-whose-writing-is-highly-critical-of-them/

Wouldn’t this proposed law conflict with the definition of ‘journalist’ as established by precedent and case law in relevant court cases, under First Amendment doctrine? Is there any scholarly opinion about the effect this would have on the Fourth Estate?

There are many people who perform journalistic functions, yet aren’t directly compensated for it. Bloggers, tract-writers, zine contributors, self-published authors, and yes, journalism students.

the key phrase is “person’s livelihood”
Seems to me that would indeed include a student. What is a student’s “livelihood?” It is the pursuit of the subject at hand, whether it is mathematics or a story, even creative writing. Does “livelihood” mean that you must make money at it? If so, what was Galileo’s livelihood?

I am reminded of a comment I heard this weekend – someone who is fanatically studies a subject, be it a band, a poet, a story, a concept – is this person a fanatic, a nut-case, or an academic?

The key to democracy is an informed and involved populace. Thus, in a sense (and with the assist of blogging), doesnt that make each of us part of the Fourth Estate?