When Josh Wolf walked out of a federal prison in California on Tuesday, the media waiting at the doors owed him congratulations and a thank you.
After holding out in a cell for nearly eight months, refusing to testify about a demonstration he videotaped as a freelance journalist, Wolf forced progress in the recognition of non-professional journalists and the discussion of the protection of confidential sources.
In 2005, Wolf, who is 24, observed a protest at a G-8 summit meeting in Scotland, documenting the scene with video. He later sold portions of his footage to local television stations and posted segments online.
During the protest, a police officer was assaulted and injured. The federal government requested that Wolf turn over his video and testify in the case. He refused and was promptly put in prison, where he stayed 226 days: the longest stretch for any reporter, professional or otherwise, for contempt of court.
The argument immediately became whether Wolf was a journalist. Without the backing of a professional organization, prosecutors wanted to label him as just a citizen with a camera, not deserving journalistic rights of protection.
But the division of journalistic work is fading fast. Today, more non-professionals are getting access to the technology and exposure needed to gather and disseminate information and are stepping up to inform the public.
The activity has spurred needed debate on the skills, editorial processes and ethics that separate the quality journalists from the hacks. But all the same, when a non-professional walks into his or her community with a pen and paper or a camera, the activity is the same as those who are paid to do it, and they deserve the same treatment by government agencies.
In the Wolf case, the confidentiality of sources was brought up - a heated issue affecting all reporters today. Regardless of his status, Wolf can only be respected for his resolve in the issue.
In most states, laws protect reporters from revealing their sources. However, on the federal level no protection is offered. The issue has been in intense debate lately, such as during the highly publicized case of New York Times reporter Judith Miller being jailed for refusing to name the source that leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Wolf, after his sustained fight, was eventually released following a settlement. The government agreed to release him on the first condition that he posted his complete footage online, which then highlighted his resilience since it contained no information vital to the case.
Secondly, Wolf was to say in writing that he didn't know who was being arrested when the officer was struck, and he didn't see protestors throw or shoot anything at police. Wolf never testified, establishing with his release the resolve and integrity of private journalism.
The merits of professional journalism can't be denied, and its editorial checks and specialized training should play a part in evaluating citizen reporting. But the highly entrenched institution of high media should not be given the exclusive status of true journalism.
The media began with citizens covering their areas and talking to their peers, in print or in person. That freedom is based on the guarantee that the public can inform itself.
Today, citizens working with new technology are re-enlivening that activity. While they may not be part of the institutional system, their activity is the same and deserves the same rights of unhindered media given to career journalists.
Reach the reporter: matthew.bowman@asu.edu.
