If “Deep Throat,” the famous anonymous source who helped expose the Watergate scandal, were alive today, he may not be meeting a Washington Post reporter in a parking lot. Instead, he might reach out on Signal to a reporter on YouTube, TikTok, Substack or a podcast, where much of today’s news reporting happens.
Polls show that more and more Americans get their news from independent online journalists or news influencers. Reporters publishing on YouTube, Substack, podcasts or other digital platforms have broken major stories, unearthed corruption, and filled gaps left by shrinking newsrooms.
Some may debate the broader implications of this shift, but that debate is beside the point. What matters is that the First Amendment does not permit the government to decide who is a “legitimate” journalist. The law protects the act of newsgathering itself — regardless of medium, platform or job title. The people producing journalism in the ways Floridians actually read, watch and listen to today must receive the same protections journalists have always needed to do their jobs.
A recent court decision in Florida threatens those protections. This month, a judge ruled that Popcorned Planet, a YouTube channel that covers entertainment news, doesn’t qualify for Florida’s reporter’s privilege, the law that allows journalists to shield their confidential sources and reporting materials from compelled disclosure.
Andy Signore, the founder and CEO of Popcorned Planet, tried to invoke the reporter’s privilege when actor Blake Lively subpoenaed him in litigation involving her former co-star Justin Baldoni. But the court held that the privilege applies only to “professional journalists,” and that a YouTube channel run by a single self-employed creator doesn’t count.
The court isn’t wrong that the privilege is limited to professional journalists, and many would say that Popcorned Planet isn’t exactly the poster child of quality reporting. But the ruling misses the point.
The court’s decision interprets the Florida reporter’s privilege so narrowly that, if followed by other courts, it will effectively exclude any independent journalist who publishes on online platforms from relying on the privilege to protect their sources. The whole point of the privilege is to ensure that sources come forward to share information with the public, knowing they can trust that a reporter won’t be forced to reveal their identity.
With traditional media on the decline around the country, it’s critically important that legal protections keep up with changes in how Americans consume news. According to a recent report, Florida has five counties without a single news source, and 24 counties with only one. Independent journalists, often operating alone and on shoestring budgets, are one of the few hopes for an oasis within these news deserts.
Journalist Jason Garcia, for instance, writes the Seeking Rents newsletter on Substack, where he reports on the ways that business influences public policy in Florida. Garcia’s newsletter, which he produces solo, has reported on mining lobbyists writing legislation, shady land deals and egregious waste of taxpayer money.
The need to protect independent, online journalists isn’t a partisan issue. Independent media thrives across the political spectrum in Florida. On the right, for example, Coastal Conservative News, which publishes on YouTube and Rumble, describes itself as a source of “faith-based, family-focused and freedom-driven news” for Floridians. On the left, Big Mouth Media claims on YouTube to be “Florida’s first progressive commentary and media company.”
When Florida passed the reporter’s privilege law in 1998, most Americans were still on dial-up internet, and YouTube didn’t exist. But the Legislature wisely wrote the statute broadly, allowing it to adapt to new technologies. That’s why courts have previously held that online publications like BuzzFeed could claim the privilege.
The court’s ruling that Popcorned Planet can’t invoke the privilege goes against that precedent, and it should be overturned on appeal. But if it isn’t, the Florida Legislature must step in.
Lawmakers could update the law to expressly confirm that journalism published online, whether on websites, third-party platforms like YouTube or Substack, or in video rather than text, is still professional journalism, and that the reporters doing it are still covered. It should also make clear that a “professional journalist” can include a journalist in a small or even single-person newsroom.
At a moment when traditional newsrooms are shrinking, the last thing Florida needs is a legal precedent that punishes independent journalists and drives whistleblowers into the shadows. Protecting all reporters and their sources is the best way to protect Floridians’ right to know the truth.
Caitlin Vogus is a senior adviser at the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment attorney. Bobby Block is the executive director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation.
