Court: Bloggers Are Not “Real” Journalists
Jim Lakely on a troubling precedent:
[A] New Jersey state appellate court last week ruled that a woman named Shellee Hale is not a “real” journalist, but just a blogger, so is not protected by the state’s shield law.
I’m not a huge fan of shield laws, which can be overused at times. But I’m less of a fan of branches of government deciding who is a “real” journalist and who is not. The court pronounces: “Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media.” I would agree, but not for the reasons stated by the court. Lakely excerpts these quotes from the decision:
“[Hale] exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity.”
“[Hale had] no connection to any legitimate news publication.”
“… nor has [Hale] demonstrated adherence to any standard of professional responsibility regulating institutional journalism, such as editing, fact-checking or disclosure of conflicts of interest.”
A parade of one-liners is struggling to escape my lips here. I’ll just turn the mike over to Lakely:
That last one makes me guffaw. It was just bloggers who fact-checked the bogus story that got “real journalism” titan Dan Rather fired from CBS. In fact, bloggers have lately done a lot of excellent and valuable public-service journalism.
It was the blogosphere, not “institutional journalism,” that smoked out Obama “Green Czar” Van Jones as a 9/11 Truther, proud communist and all-round radical nut-job. MSM organs like The New York Times and The Washington Post were essentially left to report on his resignation after the fact. The poor, in-the-dark readers of those “legitimate news publications” were left with little details as to why.
Same story for former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. It was the blogosphere that reported the story that Dunn said one of her “favorite” political philosophers was the mass murdering communist Mao Tse-Tung. The organs of “institutional journalism,” again, only picked up the story as she was being shown the door.
And then there’s Andrew Breitbart, an indispensable one-man truth squad. He has put the lie to the story, pushed by Democrats to the stenographers at “legitimate news publications,” that Tea Party protesters in Washington hurled the “n-word” at members of the Congressional Black Caucus as they walked to vote on ObamaCare. Unlike the “institutional journalist” crowd, Breitbart is willing to put his money where his reporting is, offering to donate $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone can show proof to debunk him. So far, no takers — even among the members of Congress who walked through the crowd with recording devices rolling to catch the Tea Partiers in racist spasms.
I’ll add one more observation. If adherence to journalistic principles is critical to a reporter’s application of a shield law, then the reporters at the L.A. Times might have a problem. Editing? Fact-checking? Disclosure of conflicts of interest? Have you read this site for the last seven years?
If you’re an L.A. Times source, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Yet Another Ignore the Plain Language of the First Amendment Decision.
The very act of defining the press violates that make no laws pesky clause.
Charlie B (d207cf) — 4/29/2010 @ 4:56 amI believe (and certainly hope) this ruling is overturned. Would a school newspaper fail some of these same tests? No connections to any legitimate news publication, etc.
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:22 amSome interesting related issues: The Triple Threat to Citizen Journalists.
Evil Pundit (d32807) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:37 am” The Court “, in touch with it’s letter of the paper law doctrines, and once again as out of touch with reality as we see our politicians are.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:30 amSo, we have the new USA, where formerly Founders based their decisions upon reality and life experiences, and our new USA, where coddled, bubbled, university ****heads don their dark garments after years of system pounded compliance training, and spew their fantasies from paper writ, then pat themselves on the back, in between the bribes, collusion with lying cops, quotas, hookers, and champagne parties.
Who gives a damn what reality is, THIS IS THE LAW!
Shield laws are bogus. Journalists should have exactly the same free speech rights as everyone else.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:39 amSo, you were maybe expecting justice from a judge?
ropelight (3ebf2e) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:54 amDoing a quick scan of the opinion, I don’t know that the case is as cut and dried as Lakely makes it sound.
1) The defamatory statements were made in comments posted on another website. I don’t know that this makes her a blogger any more than it makes me a blogger.
2) She stated that she had been investigating instances of fraud in the adult industry, and her comments were informed by those investigations. The trial court didn’t find these statements to be credible, suggesting they were post hoc justifications to avoid liability in a defamation suit. The appellate court is restrained by deference here.
3) The opinion cites several cases where non-traditional reporters were held to be news media in the N.J. and similar statutes and thus protected by privilege, including the California “Apple Insider” case (which is especially apropos in light of the Gizmodo fooferaw.) The opinion distinguishes the facts in this case from more news-like blogging and alt-media reporting.
For me, this is the most troublesome quote:
A quick examination of that statement. “We acknowledge that defining an essential term for the shield law is going to result in an arbitrary defintion. However, we simply cannot let the wall of privilege for journalists overextend to normal folks, so arbitrary definition here we come.”
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the outcome in this particular case, that right there is bad law and bad precedent that’s going to pop up in future cases.
Hadlowe (2eae58) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:13 amI do not like reporters, with the exception of ones like Brother Bradley, mcgruder, and a few others. I really don’t like media people as a whole, same exceptions apply. I have never seen a compelling reason that they are given greater latitude than Joe/Jane Q Citizen.
JD (c1a2b8) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:41 amIf you read through some of the 1st link ( Jim Lakely) this becomes apparent:
1. A private computer age company had employee(s) leak information that their system security was breached.
2. A blogger reported the breach, perhaps exaggerating the information leaked.
3. The company then admitted to the breach but minimized or disputed the reported the leaked information, and sued.
FOUR: The only way the company can apparently identify it’s whistle blower employee(s) and take action against them is to sue the blogger to identify whom they are.
—-
It seems to me the PR of the private company is intertwined with “news reporting” and the fight over “Are bloggers reporters”, in a way that gives them the opportunity to use the courts to coerce information out of a citizen, information they have no right to if you ask me.
So what we have currently is a kind of company/private business power whammy of information gathering above and beyond the right to citizens private conversation when no laws are broken, the courts allow it ( no shield ) or the courts disallow it for the special citizen ( reporter shield law ).
If a company has a non disclosure with it’s employees, is it every citizens legal duty to rat out any employee that tells them anything they aren’t supposed to tell them ?
It certainly appears so, unless “the shield” is applied.
In either case, there should be no need for any shield, and the courts should not be able to extract private conversation information for the private company, just because they demand it for their purposes.
Since when are an individuals private conversations stripped wide open for some private company, because the courts say you have to tell all ?
What is wiretapping for(speed only it seems), if your private conversations are available to any employer in court, on demand ?
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:45 amNo, bloggers aren’t journalists. THEY ARE BETTER!!!!!!
PCD (1d8b6d) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:12 amWould not the employee be safe under the whisle-blower law(s)?
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:19 amCorwin:
Did the employee expose illegal or unethical behavior to the relevant authorities or the media? At that point we’re back at the same question of whether a commenter at an industry reporting website is “the media.”
Hadlowe (2eae58) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:35 amGreetings:
Press Shield Laws: “All animals are equal; some animals are more equal.”
What about some journalistic malpractice laws?
11B40 (eb5b31) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:08 amJD,
I really don’t like media people as a whole, same exceptions apply.
And the reason is that media people often harbor a contempt for the unwashed masses whom these great geniuses depend on for their paycheck. It never occurs to them that people sense the contempt and return it manyfold.
Tim Cavanaugh saw this attitude in action at the LA Times.
“It’s too bad we can’t fire our readers. You don’t hear this one in mixed company, but the joke about “firing our readers” was one I heard on at least three occasions at the L.A. Times, until I finally realized it wasn’t a joke. The contempt and condescension the paper expressed for its readers had hardened into active hatred. In that respect, this journalismism is not a falsehood, because it expresses an honest feeling. But the “can’t” part is all wrong: The Times shed 40,000 readers during the last two years, nearly 300,000 during the last 10. The customer is firing himself.”
Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 4/29/2010 @ 10:05 amI called the op/ed page editor to ask why they hadn’t addressed a timely but controversial issue. He condescendingly informed me the paper must certainly have reported the issue in the news pages, otherwise I wouldn’t have known the issue existed.
ropelight (3ebf2e) — 4/29/2010 @ 10:37 amWith great respect to my friend, Brother Bradley, this is an example of why I think it is wrong to extend privileges to journalists that do not apply to all persons.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2010 @ 10:53 amGreetings to all. I’ve just returned yesterday from 3 weeks in southern Sudan. While there I missed many things (probably ice more than anything else), but high on the list was blog sourced news. Internet was slow or nonexistent, but when I could get to a good blog site (like this one) I could count on it summarizing and digesting the news that I’m interested in.
Apart from the rare instances of actual investigative reporting, what else to mainstream news outlets do? Their role and expertise is grossly overrated.
It’s very good to be back.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 4/29/2010 @ 11:14 amnew media should not be confused with news media
Of course not.
So, how did that newfangled “news media” on the teevee and wireless radio ever get conflated with real news media on good old-fashioned paper? Some judge must have been asleep to let that happen.
Subotai (1d5c79) — 4/29/2010 @ 1:14 pmSPQR,
With great respect to my friend, Brother Bradley, this is an example of why I think it is wrong to extend privileges to journalists that do not apply to all persons.
I made that very point at #5. It’s corrosive to a society founded on equal rights before the law to set aside a self-anointed priesthood as more equal than others.
As a practical consideration, the public is more likely to support journalists’ rights if those rights are the same as the public’s.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (91014e) — 4/29/2010 @ 1:36 pmThe concept of “safe under whistle-blower laws”, explain this to me. You might not be able to be dismissed, but there are other actions. Plus, there’s the whole “you’re going to need a new job in a decade” thing, when you think you’ve become almost unhireable.
htom (412a17) — 4/29/2010 @ 3:48 pmBreitbart should establish a fund that pays bloggers $1.00 each if they submit one post to him. That gives anyone who so does a “legitimate news organization” credential.
I’ll send a few bucks to Breitbart to get the fund going if he’s interested.
Ted (a119ca) — 4/29/2010 @ 4:16 pm