You seriously cannot be serious. You really think our government has good intentions in doing this? I truly wish I was as optimistic as you.
I've said nothing about "good intentions." All I've said is that, legally, all this bill would do is create a journalist-source privilege, and that the definition of "journalist" in the bill would apply ONLY to determining who is covered by the privilege. Just look at the language of the bill - technically, it is not defining "journalist," it is defining "covered journalist" (e.g., journalists who are COVERED by the privilege). It's not "optimism," it's reading the bill.