Boston Globe freelance columnist Tom Keane weighed in this week on the debate over the application of the shield law to social media (or participatory journalism, citizen journalism etc.) Keane argues that First Amendment protection should extend to everyone:

 ”If you report, investigate, or opine – even part time – then you’re doing journalism. That’s not to say that every blogger’s work is necessarily as good as that of traditional news organizations. There are huge advantages to having training, editors, a code of ethics, and the resources to be able to dig deeply into a topic. But the First Amendment was never designed to protect only professionals. It was designed to defend everyone’s ability to communicate”

This is not an old debate, of course, but one that is likely to get more serious, hopefully moving past the already banal argument of who is and who is not a “journalist.”

Helen Thomas, the venerable White House correspondent, spoke for many in the old guard (and certainly many in the journalism profession in general) when she says that:

“… I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they’re a journalist and doesn’t understand the ethics.”

Thomas’s comments were quite sensible: If you provide information to the public, get it ethically and make sure it is accurate. What bothers me slightly is the notion that professional journalists are in a special position to understand these ethics better others. Journalism ethics to me have always been simply ethics in general: don’t lie, don’t fabricate, don’t promise anonymity to sources then break that promise, etc.

When I “teach” journalism ethics in undergraduate reporting courses we typically talk about the major fabricators – Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass etc. – and then some situational, “What would you do?” case studies. These include discussing the ethics of voicing a public opinion about things you cover or might cover (for example, a Supreme Court reporter marching in pro-choice rally), accepting gifts, verifying tips, etc..

Certainly the ethics involved in supplying people with information are very often sticky. But I would argue that they are not simply unknowable by anyone who is not a professional journalist.