A footnote on the whole Mayhill Fowler thing: Mindy McAdams, writing about this story, makes the point it’s important we don’t start insisting on accreditation for “offical” journalists. “Naming who is a journalist - and who is not - is a dangerous, dangerous course to follow - and one I hope will never be pursued in my own country,” she writes.

I agree, but she should be aware that the US insists on just that - accreditation - for foreign reporters.

My US reporting visa is expired now, because I don’t report from there any more. It’s a hassle to renew as well - were I to try, it would be paperwork, money and a visit to the US embassy in London before I could work from the US.

I’m not tempted to try a sneaky workaround. Were I to take up reporting again and do my thing from Web 2.0 in San Francisco next week, I too could be locked up and thrown out the country - just like reporters from Zimbabwe whose fate she highlights on her blog. A freelance working for the Guardian suffered this indignity a few years back, and I know journalists fall foul of this reasonably regularly. Long weekends in New York get a whole bunch harder after that, I’ll warrant.

The reasons for the rules differ, I’m sure, between the US and Zimbabwe, but the effect is just the same.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Who’s a journalist, who’s not, and why it doesn’t really matter anyway
• » Insufferable Web 2.0 post: day one

• BROWSE / IN Uncategorized
• « links for 2008-04-15
• » links for 2008-04-24