ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on one critical example of how legal institutions and lawmakers globally are grappling with language as they quite literally redefine the terms 'journalist', 'journalism' and 'news media'. It examines the key arguments raised in relation to this vexed issue, drawing from legal and media scholarship as well as legal practice, political and policy environments, and case law. The coalition rejected the idea that a broad definition of journalist could be used to shelter from prosecution people who used social media or websites occasionally, noting that the "definition limits its application to individuals who are unquestionably career journalists. Shield laws have also provided the New Zealand courts with a reason to consider how broadly to define a journalist and media organization. Media coalitions and media organizations as well as policymakers and legislative developers all bring their own language, understanding, experience, and contexts to the changing definitions of 'Who is a journalist?' and 'news media' in the digital age.
