By Marie Thibault

A couple recent stories have me thinking about freelance journalists and whether they should always be treated the same as traditional, salaried journalists. At first, it seems obvious that anyone fulfilling the same purpose as a old media reporter should be the same treatment because an important need is being served.

This Daily Kos story reiterates that notion. Two senators are attempting to tighten the language of the Shield Law, leaving freelancers and bloggers out in the cold. Reporters who go it alone need at least as much protection to do their work as established journalists with (relatively) safe salaries and the reputation of a big media organization need.

The worry that terrorist and criminals could call themselves journalists is unwarranted, because, as suggested, the language could define “journalist” by the action of journalists. Reporting, notes, interviews, etc. The Nieman Journalism Lab does a thorough job of covering this story, too.

But not so fast — there’s a flip side to this argument. Treating freelancers just like any other journalist can be dangerous. This New York Times article discusses how freelancers who venture into dangerous territory in order to tell an important and career-making story put themselves and others in peril, because of lack of funding and experience. The article has paraphrased Rodney Pinder, director of the International News Safety Institute:

“A few years ago, he said, several large broadcasters tried to reach an agreement not to buy video from unassigned, unaffiliated freelancers, so as to discourage excessive risk-taking. But that collapsed when it became apparent that no news organization would actually turn down images from a major news event.”

Publishing pieces created by a freelance journalist in a war zone only encourages future aspiring reporters to take similar risks, the article points out. So what’s the best solution here? Should media organizations flat-out reject freelancer work from dangerous countries? That doesn’t serve the purpose of journalism, since a much-needed story could be told. Also, it’s important that a freelancer, once in trouble, be given the title of journalist and have the backing of a trusted news organization in order to escape. So marginalizing adventurous freelancers isn’t the right idea, either.

I’m not sure what the best solution is. Maybe traditional media organizations need to step up and devote more resources to these troubled parts of the world. That way, there might be less allure for freelancers to cover a story that’s already being told in detail.