1064 58 UCLA LAW REVIEW 1025 (2011)
types of definitions are clearly aimed at identifying the more traditional news
media. A New Jersey court, for example, concluded that the state legislature
crafted its shield law with the goal of “protecting entities generally viewed as
part of the news gathering apparatus in the United States.”
246
One of the most obvious problems with this approach is that listing some
affiliations suggests that no others qualify and thus raises the risk of wrongfully
excluding a particular medium. It might also create new constitutional issues
of equal protection.
247
In construing the Alabama shield law, for example, the
Eleventh Circuit interpreted the language applying the statute “to newspa-
pers, radio broadcasting stations, or television stations” as not extending to
magazines.
248
A similar concern is that constantly changing technology and
communication patterns could make the definition forever at risk of becom-
ing outdated. The state shield laws, for example, often do not protect bloggers
because they do not include the internet on the explicit list of shielded media.
Indeed, it was not until 2007 that the first state, Washington, specifically applied
its journalist’s privilege law to information disseminated over the internet.
249
journals, press associations, news agencies, wire services, radio, television, or any printed, photographic,
mechanical, or electronic means of disseminating news and information to the public); M
ONT. CODE
ANN. § 26-1-902 (2009) (applying the state reporter’s privilege to newspapers, magazines, press
associations, news agencies, news services, radio stations, television stations, or community antenna
television services); N.Y.
JUD. LAW § 218(2)(c) (McKinney 2005) (defining the news media as those
who will be allowed to cover court proceedings in an audiovisual manner, including those associated
with “television, radio, radio and television networks, news services, newspapers, magazines, trade
papers, in-house publications, professional journals or any other news reporting or news gathering
agency, the function of which is to inform the public, or some segment thereof”); see also C
AL.
C
ONST. art. I, § 2(b) (applying the state reporter’s privilege to “[a] publisher, editor, reporter, or
other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or
employed . . . [or] a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed
by a radio or television station”).
246. In re Napp Techs., Inc., 768 A.2d 274, 280 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2000); see also N.J.
S
TAT. ANN. 2A:84A-21 (West 1994) (providing protection to a “person engaged on, engaged in,
connected with, or employed by news media for the purpose of” newsgathering).
247. See, e.g., Garrett v. Estelle, 556 F.2d 1274, 1279 (5th Cir. 1977) (rejecting the plaintiff’s
argument that denying camera access amounted to an Equal Protection Clause violation).
248. Price v. Time, Inc., 416 F.3d 1327, 1335–43 (11th Cir. 2005).
249. See Bauer, supra note 245, at 747; W
ASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 5.68.010 (West 2009)
(applying protections to any “newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book publisher, news agency, wire
service, radio or television station or network, cable or satellite station or network, or audio or
audiovisual production company, or any entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and
disseminating news or information to the public by any means, including but not limited to, print,
broadcast, photographic, mechanical, internet, or electronic distribution”).