Defining 'journalist'is a slippery slope. Journalism is an act defined by the doing, not place of employment

A number of years ago, my wife found herself in a fender-bender. Nobody was hurt, thank goodness, but the accident was serious enough to require the filing of a police report. Over the next day or two, our phone rang nonstop: Personal-injury lawyers had grabbed hold of the information and pounced.

Brrring! Hello. Wanna sue? No. Click.

It was an obnoxious and annoying ordeal.

So I understand why Michigan legislators are trying to prevent the ambulance chasers from enjoying easy access to similar data. These are the lawyers who give the rest a bad name: I picture them as vultures, circling document centers, swooping down and carrying away information in their grasping talons.

But Lansing is going about it the wrong way.

Last week, a bipartisan majority on the House Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 4770, which seeks to define the word “journalist.” The goal is to distinguish between those who should see accident records immediately (vehicle owners, prosecutors, journalists, etc.) and those who shouldn’t (the vulture-lawyers).

Journalists, of course, ought to have access to public documents. The proposed legislation, sponsored by Ellen Cogen Lipton, D-Huntington Woods, recognizes this. Unfortunately, it also comes dangerously close to the licensing of reporters.

This is a rotten idea, and liberal societies like our own abandoned it long ago.

Via: Detroit News

Continue Reading....