A New York Times editorial takes aim at what the newspaper calls "the harvesting of what is called nonpublic information" by "political intelligence operatives" who "make regular rounds to schmooze with well-situated acquaintances and discover what is in the works that is not yet on the public radar."
The Times asserts that "these specialists should have to register like lobbyists." The editorial concludes with a call by Congress to pass a law to "force disclosure by the information parasites living off Congress."
It seems to me that the only difference between what the Times calls "information parasites" and the reporters the Times pays to cover Congress is that the Times charges lower fees to its subscribers and has a larger number of them, while the "political intelligence operatives" have fewer customers and charge higher fees (though at the rate the Times has been raising its circulation fees, that may be a temporary distinction). If the Times is going to call for a law regulating "the harvesting of what is called nonpublic information" — also known as "reporting" — it might want to consider the First Amendment, or explain why some reporting is parasitic and requires additional regulation, while other reporting deserves First Amendment protection and the self-congratulation normally on display at journalism awards ceremonies. Otherwise people might come to the conclusion that the Times just wants a government crackdown on its competitors in the information industry.