Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a name just might get me the full protection of the First Amendment and, in California, the constitutional guarantee of "Reporter's Shield."

The name I'm talking about here is "journalist."

Actually, "might" is the operative word. The post-Internet fight about who exactly is a journalist is about to get rough, and it all has to do with money.

Several Internet-only writers broke the news of a hot new internal Apple Computer product, and Apple says they can't protect their sources for one very simple reason - these guys ain't journalists.

At this writing, the decision is in the hands of a judge in San Jose, who appears to be leaning toward agreeing with Apple, but it doesn't really matter. However his honor rules, there will be appeals, and who knows how far it will go before it's all finally settled.

While both legislation and case law are extensive on the protective rights of reporters, exactly who may or may not be a journalist has gotten more difficult with the introduction of the Internet.

Unchanged is the premise that a staff writer for The New York Times would clearly be included, even though everything on The New York Times website may not be printed in its paper. The basic proposition being put forth is that publications appearing solely on the Internet may not journalism.

The earliest and perhaps most memorable example of this argument is Matt Drudge and the web-only Drudge Report. He and it went mainstream when he scooped the Monica Lewinski scandal, causing heated debate - if not downright irritation - among the rank-and-file professionals. Was Drudge a journalist? Was The Drudge Report journalism?

The ferocity was palpable during the Q&A session which followed Drudge's speech at the National Press Club. While he protested that he was indeed a journalist, he was inescapably amateurish answering basic questions about confirming sources and when to go with a story.

Which gets us back to the heart of the matter: Who gets to call himself a journalist?

Dan Gillmor is the lead technology columnist for Knight-Ridder's San Jose Mercury News. He argues in his book, "We the Media," that anyone on the Internet who is trying to publish the truth for the benefit of society is a journalist. One example he cites is the bloggers who wouldn't let Trent Lott off the hook for his remarks during that fateful final birthday celebration for Strom Thurmond. The mainstream press let it pass, but the bloggers wouldn't. Lott's apparent condoning of Thurmond's segregationist policies kept them fueled, and in the end, it meant the end of Lott's career.

It's the subtitle to Dan's book which gives us context: "Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people." But while there's no doubt that a strong press is essential to a strong democracy, this Apple business is about business. It's about Apple employees improperly letting out information about a confidential corporate project, and people on the web turning around and publishing it - not unlike, I might add, a business reporter looking for a scoop. But Apple wanted to know who did it, so they came up with the clever argument that these people were *not* journalists.

I'm not sure what the real answer should be, but I do know this. One of the three people Apple took to court is a 19 year old, who remarkably got all the details right. Somebody should go find that kid and hire him. He'd make a heck of a journalist … if he isn't one already.

I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.

Back to Five Minutes List