At least according to William Safire, speaking on proposed legislation to protect bloggers as well as media type against revealing sources in their stories with the Free Flowing of Information Act.

“William Safire, a longtime New York Times columnist and former Nixon administration speech writer, praised the bill’s current definition because he said it focuses on the actions characteristic of journalists, not their affiliations.

“Whether you’re a blogger or whether you’re The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you’re a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not,” he said. (The New York Times, the National Association of Broadcasters and other journalism groups have endorsed the latest bill, according to its sponsors.)”

Apparently the Bush administration is against this legislation because they feel the definition is too broad and I tend to agree. While freedom of the press is an important component of our constitution I don’t believe it even was meant to allow journalist to quote confidential sources and then be shielded from revealing them, especially when a crime has been committed. Much less for “Pajama Media” types like myself or other bloggers some of which often quote sources in their posts.

Fort instance in the case of national security leaks the Govenment has a right and responsibility to assertain who leaked the information. The real issue is just who would be protected:

“The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web,” Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect “a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans.”

Justice Department opposition has bedeviled Congress throughout its numerous attempts in recent years to enact federal shield laws. Supporters say such legislation is needed in light of high-profile cases involving New York Times reporter Judith Miller and what free-press advocacy groups characterize as a sharp rise in subpoenas to reporters in recent years.

Laws recognizing some form of “reporter’s privilege” already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia–but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there’s no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs.

This year’s Free Flow of Information Act, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate, proposes a protection for a broader swath of people than earlier versions. It covers anyone engaged in journalism, which is defined as “gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.”

Even those covered individuals could be forced to give up their sources under certain circumstances, including when it’s clear that crimes have been committed, when “imminent or actual harm” to national security could occur, or when trade secrets, nonpublic personal information or health records are compromised in violation of existing laws.”

This is something to keep our eyes on, but as I read the act I’m totally against expanding the already expanded shield laws. Instead I would prefer that there would be fewer not greater priviledges.