While I've been reading We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age, I've had to take breaks to ponder some things before I write a book review. This post really isn't about the book, instead it is about what I've been considering. Honestly, I haven't thought that much about it. I typically write what I see or think, I sometimes write about other people but most of the time decide not to as to be credible I would want to quote. People, despite what social networking folk seem to think, enjoy their privacy.

I've mistakenly thought that the 'Freedom of the Press', as noted in the United States, was consistent - the book demonstrates that this is not the case and even lead me to ponder why it is that 'the press' has more rights than the average person on the planet. For example, why is it that sometimes a journalist can get away with not divulging sources but the average person is more likely to be held in contempt of a Court for the same. It makes little sense to me, and while the author of the book took me down his own (thorough) chain of thought, I'm still wondering why it is that the media was even given rights - poorly defined rights - in the Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Was it to assure that the media could remain independent? That is demonstrably not the case as anyone who chuckles at Fox News is aware. Was it so that reporting on sensitive issues could allow for anonymity where a Court would not? How many people are put on trial in the media with anonymous sources used for information? Is that justice? I'm not sure I can defend that; I'm fairly certain it has to be defended for some reason but I cannot quite put my finger on it. Citations lend credibility in the courtroom, academia and even on the Internet now and then - but is news supposed to be credible? Or is it supposed to be gossip?

So, you see, I am having some trouble getting my head around that. There are instances - life and death - where someone may need to remain anonymous. These are few and far between, and it isn't seen as much as anonymous sources leaking trade secrets and insider information to simply sell copy. I'm not saying that it is unethical, but if you step back and consider it there is a very grey area where ethics has a really important part to play. And with the new media - where everyone with a keyboard is seen by at least a few people as journalists - isn't it fair to say that the grey area has become decidedly larger?

Now let's say that everyone has equal rights - a novel concept, I know - and let's go further and say that journalists have no more or less rights than anyone else.

So why is it that there are varying 'shield laws' for journalists in the United States? And what about the rest of the world?

Where does journalism stop and end? I do not know. What I do know is that I could probably do a lot more traffic on my websites by posting all manner of cloak and dagger things - but I do not want to be known for that. That's sort of like being a porn star, which is all well and good until you go to meet your future in-laws.

So I've decided I'm an UnJournalist. An UnJournalist is just someone who is a witness and communicator of ideas. We have no real shield laws, we operate based on ethics and just try to make the best of it. We practice UnJournalism, which is sort of like Journalism but isn't steeped in all manner of hodge podge inconsistency in Law and perception.

Of course, I may be the only one. But there may be a lot of other people who may give themselves cooler names. I'll stick with UnJournalist.