Behind almost every correction in The Times, there is a story. In the case of the correction about Alexa O'Brien, the story is a particularly interesting one.
The correction, which was in Wednesday's paper, read:
An article on Tuesday about the role of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in the case of Edward J. Snowden, the former computer contractor who leaked details of National Security Agency surveillance, referred incompletely to Alexa O'Brien, who has closely followed the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of providing military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. While Ms. O'Brien has participated in activist causes like Occupy Wall Street and US Day of Rage, she also works as an independent journalist; she is not solely an activist.
After the article was published, Ms. O'Brien e-mailed me and others at The Times, making the strong case that she is a journalist and should be referred to as one. I passed it along to the corrections desk. The Times, to its credit, considered the case and decided to run a correction.
But this raises a question that is very much of the current moment. Who â€" and what â€" is a journalist? It's not just about semantics.
There is a strong legal component to this discussion: Who will be covered by a federal shield law that would give legal protection to journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources, if it ever comes to pass? Will it cover only established news organizations or those who get paid for news gathering? Or does it cover everyone with a Facebook page?
The question t akes on added heat in the context of the Obama administration's prosecution of leakers using the Espionage Act, its pursuit of Mr. Assange, and the recent naming of a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, as a co-conspirator in a leak case.
Then, quite separately, there's a question of the amount of professional respect shown to those like Ms. O'Brien and the columnist Glenn Greenwald, who has broken major news stories about government surveillance for The Guardian in recent weeks.
Is Mr. Greenwald a “blogger,†as a Times headline referred to him recently? That headline was atop a profile that did not use the word journalist to describe the columnist for The Guardian United States, the New York-based Web site associated with the British newspaper. At the time, I wrote (on Twitter) that I found the headline dismissive. There's nothing wrong with being a blogger, of course â€" I am one myself. But when the media establishment uses the term, it somehow seems to say, “You're not quite one of us.†(And that might be just fine with Mr. Greenwald, who has written disparagingly of some media people, whom he calls “courtiers of power.â€)
Bruce Headlam, who edits media coverage in The Times and who was an important voice in deciding that a correction was in order on the reference to Ms. O'Brien, has considered the subject.
“I don't consider ‘blogger' an insult and I don't consider ‘activist' to be an insult, either,†he said. But he acknowledges that “I might be in the minority†on those points.
He also noted, rightly, that these matters have taken on more significance in the current climate, and could be crucial for Mr. Greenwald. (Under fire, the Obama administration has recently said that it won't pursue journalists for doing their jobs.)
On the flip side, but in the same context, the journalistic credentials of at least one established broadcaster came under attack in the last week.
Frank Rich, writing about the NBC-“Meet the Press†anchor David Gregory, smacked him around (as did many others) for asking Mr. Greenwald why he “shouldn't be charged with a crime†for “the extent he aided and abetted†Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. leaker.
In a New York magazine piece, Mr. Rich wrote: “Is David Gregory a journalist? As a thought experiment, name one piece of news he has broken, one beat he's covered with distinction, and any memorable interviews he's conducted that were not with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick Durbin or Chuck Schumer.†And he derisively suggested that Mr. Gregory begin to host his network's “Today†show, so that he can “speak truth to power by grilling Paula Deen.â€
So, who's a journalist? I could explore the legislative and legal questions, and that may be something worth returning to in this space. (Decisions that have been made in interpreting New Jersey's strong shield law are of particular interest, as is the language before the Senate now on the proposed federal law.)
But for now, I'll offer this admittedly partial definition: A real journalist is one who understands, at a cellular level, and doesn't shy away from, the adversarial relationship between government and press â€" the very tension that America's founders had in mind with the First Amendment.
Those who fully meet that description deserve to be respected and protected - not marginalized.
