The Man Without Qualities has brilliantly analyzed the problem of journalistic privilege.
I'll quote from a Supreme Court case he cites, among others:And a few years before that the Court had said in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. V. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985):
We explained in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) that "the informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press" to justify greater privileges under the First Amendment was also "performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists." Id., at 705. From its inception, without discussing the issue, we have applied the rule of New York Times to nonmedia defendants. See New York Times, 376 U.S., at 254 , n., 286; Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356 (1965); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964). And this Court has made plain that the organized press has a monopoly neither on the First Amendment nor on the ability to enlighten. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 (1978) See also Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) (press has no independent First Amendment right of access to prisons). Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48 -49 (1976) (the idea that government can restrict the speech of some elements of society to enhance the relative voice of others is "wholly foreign" to the First Amendment).
There's a reason he should be on your blogroll. I'm adding him to mine.
PS. I've updated the link information, thanks to Philalex
, whom you should also stop over and read, send effusive thanks to, applaud in public places, and generally recall as a nice guy.