* You’ve often seen me complain about the Peoria Journal Star’s political coverage - mainly their silly columnists who don’t seem to know much about politics.
But you’ve never once seen me complain about Adriana Colindres, the PJ Star’s Statehouse bureau reporter. Colindres is top notch all the way. She’s one of those real reporters who gets down to the nitty gritty. She’s not flashy, a bit on the quiet side (OK, more than a bit), and her stories are always solid.
Colindres’ paper laid her off yesterday.
What a stupid, stupid move, but all too common these days. Sacrifice state coverage for local puff pieces.
Best of luck, Adriana. If there’s anything I can do, just ask.
* Meanwhile, if you want to learn more about Mother Tribune’s new CEO, take a look at this Salon piece from 2001. I’m not gonna excerpt it because it’s kinda racy, and if your employer would frown on that sort of thing you might want to wait until you get home. When you do look at the piece, search the page for “Behind the mike.” The juicy part starts there. Or, click here and scroll down to the excerpt. I’m sure all Trib Co employees are super proud this week.
* And speaking of embarrassments to Illinois, I give you Sen. Dick Durbin…
Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin are attempting to narrow the definition of a journalist in the federal shield law under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. Their amendment would limit protection from testifying to professional journalists working for “a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical.” Not included: student journalists, amateur bloggers, or even freelancers working without a contract.
Markos Moulitsas had the news last night. I’ve been on the phone this morning with people who have worked on the bill, and the consensus is that Feinstein and Durbin are introducing the amendment out of national security concerns: If the shield law is too broad, they reason, it could afford protection to criminals and terrorists who claim the mantle of journalism. Neither senator’s office has returned my calls, and it’s not clear if the amendment will be adopted at today’s committee meeting.
The version of the shield law already passed by the House (H. 985) defines a journalist in monetary terms, covering only those who gather and disseminate information “for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain.” The Senate has waffled between a similarly professional definition and one that would cover amateurs. The White House, which had dragged its feet on the shield law over national-security concerns, is said to support the broader definition.
A number of news-industry groups, including the Newspaper Association of America, are also supporting coverage for amateurs. Kevin Goldberg, general counsel for the American Society of News Editors, told me today: “There are already exemptions for national security in the bill. If the concern is that the guy holding the video camera for an Osama bin Laden tape is not going to have to testify, that’s a little far-fetched.”
So, Durbin’s not worried that terrorists will strike Illinois if we move Gitmo prisoners to Thomson, but he’s actually fretting that a terrorist will be shielded as a journalist, even though there is already a provision in the bill that forbids shielding terrorists? Give me a break.
Frankly, I don’t want the government taking any role in defining who a journalist actually is. They’ll just screw it up and make life difficult for too many people.
Contact Durbin’s office by clicking here. The amendment is here.