[testvox]

"Freedom of the press" in US law just means the freedom to create and distribute media (as opposed to freedom of speech which is specifically about the spoken word). "The press" references the printing press not the news media or journalists who are in modern times called "the press" also in reference to the printing press. Journalists have the same first amendment rights as everyone else (actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard).

[unishark]

Kind of works out to special freedoms when the govt limits the number of people who can observe events and hands access credentials out based on whether they are more legitimate-appearing journalists.

[chrisseaton]

Why does the government have an approved press pool? When you think about it it’s completely barmy. Why don’t they do everything via press releases and let everyone access equally?

[Retric]

It’s a legacy from before radio, which sticks around because press briefings often allow for questions.

Q&A is useful because it adds clarity, but the format means they can pick which reporters to favor.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why don’t they do everything via press releases and let everyone access equally?

Because that's less transparent. From an idealistic perspective, sure, this is fine. From a practical perspective, it's bonkers.

[chrisseaton]

Why is it more transparent to let a lot of unelected people who represent nobody ask questions? We already have elected people paid to do this job - HM’s opposition.

[JumpCrisscross]

This is a good example of letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Because everyone can't--physically--have access, nobody gets it and the elected leadership gets to hide behind press releases.

[chrisseaton]

The Opposition get it - that’s what they’re there for. And unlike the press they’re elected, paid, accountable, and recallable.

[jcranmer]

> actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard

The higher standard you're referring to I think is the "actual malice" standard, but that applies when the target of the defamation is a public figure, regardless of whether the alleged defamer is a journalist.

[raxxorrax]

Sensible definition and I think it goes even further as they have some privileges as they cannot be forced to reveal sources. I think these rights should be extended to anyone that fits the definition in the widest sense that it includes all type of whistleblowing.

[testvox]

They actually can be forced to reveal sources, the choice not to force them to reveal sources was executive branch policy not law and this policy was rescinded by the Obama administration. I think they realized this was pretty bad optics though so Obama and Trump mostly just relied on using their broad intelligence powers to track down reporter's sources.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-administra...

[raxxorrax]

Damn, of course...

[chrisseaton]

> they cannot be forced to reveal sources

Is that the case? What legislation gives them that right?

[briandear]

There’s no such legislation.

[judge2020]

> actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard

Only because what they publish is, by default, going to see more eyeballs and thus more likely for the defamed party to wan to seek remediation.