Is Blogging Journalism? 556
An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the judge's refusal to extend journalist protections to Think Secret in its case against Apple, the Net is abuzz with commentaries coming to its defense. MacInTouch points to three of them, from CNET's Declan McCullagh, MP3 Newswire's Richard Menta and grassroots journalism pundit Dan Gillmor. All agree that Apple went too far with its case and question the court's decision that Web journalists don't count."
Definately (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Definately (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait. Journalists still research their articles?
Re:Definately (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that while most people don't research their blogs there are some that do.
The same is true for journalists...most are rather crappy but the precious few that do their job well are those who define their job field.
In this way bloggers are in fact journalists, albeit unpaid, just some are better than others.
Re:Definately (Score:5, Informative)
Is my website a blog or a news service?
I like to think so. CircusNews.com is currently the most widely read news publication in the circus industry. Big Apple, Ringlings, Cirque and everyone else in the industry gladly issues us press passes when ever we ask. State and (in at least one major case) federal agencies have relied on our research and news reports over the years, not to mention the 50,000 readers we see a month. We are looking at licening AP content, and perhaps joining the AP.
So if we are not a news service, can ANYONE explain to me why not?
Re:Definately (Score:3, Interesting)
Are opinion columnists considered journalists?
Re:Definately (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Definately (Score:3, Insightful)
Some sites do just this, such as mediamatters [mediamatters.org] (clearly targets conservatives, but importantly only those that deserve it because they didn't do their research
Sort of offtopic but found this...
Can anyone explain to me the point
Re:Dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw a city go up in flames. Then the next day I drove over there and found that a couple of blocks had been destroyed. I saw a city go up in flames. Then a week later I returned and saw acre on acre of devastation (with pockets untouched, appearantly arbitrarily).
From the news I couldn't tell which occurance was more drastic. They always attempt for maximal impact, with the result that one can't have any sense of porportion. Equally, if they decide not to cover something, it doesn't matter how large it is, it's just ignored.
I trust bloggers MORE than I trust journalists. They don't hide their biases as much, and they don't have a professional interest in distorting everything for maximal entertainment value. And they express a true variety of viewpoints. (The US press is over 90% owned by 7 corporations [perhaps 5...I don't keep track, and there are mergers]. People working in corporations don't say anything publically that they believe will upset their bosses, or allow their subordinates to do so.)
People deride Slashdot, but I trust it more as a source of news than I do the local papers. It's true that it doesn't cover a wide variety of topics, and it's true that there are trolls and astroturfers. But there's lots of other people, too, and things that people want to say aren't censored (except in ways peculiar to Slashdot, and which don't reflect the biases of the external world).
Blogs partake of the essence of Slashdot. (Well, the popular ones do.) If one person lies, someone else will contradict them. The ensuing discussion will probably reveal who is lying, or provide things I can check. Usually it turns out that the people just consider different things important, and they're arguing about their tastes. And *that's* important to find out also.
Re:Definately (Score:3, Insightful)
Not very often in the U.S., anyway...
Issue is not research. Issue is gov out of bounds (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
The constitutional protection of the press is to prevent suppression of viewpoints and information by the government. What the judge was ruling on is whether the state-level journalist protection law applied to this blog. Letting that government pick and chose what is press - i
Re:Definately (Score:2)
Re:Definately (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the New York Times journalism? Yep. (usually at least ;)
Is the Star paper that you can pick up in your supermaket journalism? No.
Both are on paper media. The media has nothing to do with it. It's all about the quality.
99% of blogs are crap, but there are certain ones that I would say certainly are journalism.
Re:Definately (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the Star paper that you can pick up in your supermaket journalism? No.
Both are on paper media. The media has nothing to do with it. It's all about the quality."
To add to you point:
I've seen many comments here and in TFAs to the effect of, "What if the New York Times had published those leaks? There'd be no lawsuit."
That's disinginous at best and stupid at worst. The New York Times would never had published the leak. An editor would have asked the reporter who their source was, and if it was an Apple insider, would have asked if the insider was covered by an NDA.
That's because the New York Times actually engages in journalism.
Re:Definately (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the ethics of a particular publisher distinguishes it as a journalist. Censorship starts when you try to split hairs over what is good journalism and what is bad, and therefore unprotected.
Re:Definately (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, newspapers sometimes publish material that is actually illegal to reveal, like classified government secrets. When a paper gets information like that, it tries to decide whether the newsworthiness of the information outweighs the legal danger of publishing it, and goes ahead and prints it if it is sufficiently newsworthy. Sometimes the paper is correct, as in the case of the Pentagon Papers, and sometimes it's wrong, as in the case of outing Valerie Plame, but in either case newspapers are perfectly
Re:Definately (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, *inducing* someone to violate an NDA is illegal regardless of who does the inducing. Now, if the person comes to you and says "have I got a scoop for you" and you publish and do *not* specifically reward the source, then you have something closer to the issue being debated.
Re:NDA's are meaningless (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you can sign away your First Amendment rights in certain cases, and yes, NDAs are generally valid.
Qualitative measures? (Score:2, Insightful)
Protections extend to anyone that publishes, in any written form. The quality of that content is irrelevant to whether that writer enjoys protection under the law.
Re:Qualitative measures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Qualitative measures? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Definately (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is. Quality has nothing to do with intent. Just because the Star is tabloid trash doesn't make it any less a member of the press.
p
Re:Definately (Score:5, Insightful)
They weren't doing this for the public good. They were doing it to steal Apple's thunder.
The good that they did was for Apples competitors. They let them know Apples trade secrets so that those competitors could now adjust their plans to out compete Apple.
Just because something is factual, it doesn't make it news.
I could publish your name, social security number, bank account number, credit card number, and pin number. As long as they are accurate, it's cool with you I give them to the whole world, right?
No, because that is private infromation, the release of which does nothing for the public good. It only hurts the person who held it as personal information.
Not every piece of information in the world is 'news' worthy of protection of the press.
Re:Definately (Score:3, Insightful)
It's timely. It's of interest to a wide variety of people. How is this not news?
Sure, it might be illegal and immoral, but it's still news. Indeed, in the criminal world information like "the FBI is preparing a massive sting next Tuesday" would very newsworthy.
This isn't to defend this particular case; the evidence does seem to suggest that the "journalistic shield" doesn't apply. However, it's still news.
Re:Definately (Score:2)
Re:Definately (Score:2, Insightful)
what about the ones who just complains and spread FUD on their blogs? where do you draw the line on what is journalism and what isn't? for every research proving anything, there's always a research questioning the validity of it.
Was Apple Right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Was Apple Right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Was Apple Right? (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini [freeminimacs.com]
Or a free Nintendo D [freegamingsystems.com]
Re:Was Apple Right? (Score:2)
Re:Was Apple Right? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct, and Apple suit is not against these three places for damages. Rather Apple is seeking out the information of who leaked the new line up of iProducts.
Re:Was Apple Right? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I as the blogger don't have any responsability to protect your NDA.
Actually, you do. Go read the Uniform Trade Secrets Act if you think otherwise. If there is a distinct possibility that the knowledge you are receiving is a protected secret (and in the Apple case, it was 99% certain because everything is under NDA anyway), and you receive it anyway and act on or publish said information, you have breached the UTSA and can be punished.
Anyway, the Apple court had absolutely nothing at all about the 'blogger' protecting the NDA, Apple was suing for the name of his source, you know - the person who actually broke the NDA. If the thinksecret guy hadnt refused to hand the name over, he wouldnt be in court at this moment - Apple arent after him, they are after the person who leaked the information.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Fox news was right of center, but not too far. The PBS News Hour was the most balanced. ABC and NBC were left of center, but not too far. CBS was pretty far to the left.
Fox News is very comercially sucessful because it is the only TV news outlet with a right wing bias. Market research found that a *majority* of Americans thought the existing news at the time had a bias to the left, so creating a station with some bias to the right was an excellent marketing decision: provide what the majority of viewers want to see, and be the only outlet doing so.
That doesn't, by itself, mean the reporting on Fox News is any better or worse than ABC or NBC, or any more biased, just well targeted to the largest demographic in its direction of bias. Personally, I think all the 24-hour news chanels are terrible, as there's usually a lot less news than they have hours to fill, so you get mostly low-quality filler.
Uh...actual excerpts from the report (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox News is very comercially sucessful because it is the only TV news outlet with a right wing bias.
What happened with Fox News is that they cited left-wing and right-wing think tanks with equal frequency. They came out as slightly right-biased because they used longer quotes from the right-wing tanks. This could be bias. Or it could be that Fox News is sticking to their "fair and balanced" pledge but the arguments of the right-wing tanks need more e
This is wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Now individuals getting into a high government press conference... that's different...)
But if there's such a right (Score:2)
Because it's a right to ALL PEOPLE (Score:2)
(That's my interpretation. I realize others will argue differently.)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice example, but, unfortunately, wrong:
The NDA is simply a contract. In order for a contract to be valid, the object of the contract must be lawfull. In this case, the object of the contract would be to cover-up an unlawfull act (use of slave labor) thus the contract (the NDA) would be void, and karmaflux could not, then, be in violation of the NDA.
But what about fuzzy areas... (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, the object of the contract is still lawful (there wasn't CONCLUSIVE evidence) but a corporate leak at this point might've saved hundreds of lives.
Or how about Windows virus announcements? You could have a security issue that Microsoft wants to keep buried. But
Congress shall make no law... (Score:2)
IANAL, but I'd interpret that to mean that you can't restrict the press on freedom of speech moreso than the individual... not granting the press *more* rights than the individual...
Some of the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some of the time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow I don't see the need for journalists to be identified by how they are compensated for their work. That kind of narrows the field of competition to conglomorate media sources and media outlets that may have financial control over the output of their writers.
Sorry but just because we have lawmakers in the pockets of corporations doesn't mean we shouldn't be
Re:Some of the time. (Score:2)
Re:Some of the time. (Score:2, Funny)
Well, I would say I am only about 5% crap at the moment, and this is after a quite big meal too.
no way, not a chance (Score:3, Interesting)
"NO"
it is journaling and commentary.
about the same thing as wasting your time reading the letters to the editor.
Short answer: no (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on what you mean by "journalism" (Score:5, Insightful)
Graf is the former editor of the Harvard Crimson, but he's not a journalist in the traditional sense, and he represents the first "legit" blogger allowed into the press gaggle. I'd say that's a very positive sign.
Re:Depends on what you mean by "journalism" (Score:2)
Just recently Garrett Graf, who runs the political blog FishbowlDC, was granted access to the White House Press Briefing - the same thing Guckert/Gannon was maligned for attending without any "real" credentials.
Guckert/Gannon was not maligned for receiving a press pass. He was maligned for receiving a press pass using a false name, lying about his journalistic credentials, and lying about his involvement in illegal prostitution. All of this is well documented on blogs [blogspot.com] and legit news [washingtonpost.com] outlets [foxnews.com].
(I don't w
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to imagine why that would be the case.
When everything that happens to be written becomes journalism, then the word journalism ceases to mean anything.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Then by all means, share: where is the dividing line between journalists and non-journalists?
Is someone who worked as a formally annointed "journalist" for 40 years at a major newspaper still a journalist if they quit working for the newspaper and start a blog reporting on the same topics? What about someone who worked there for five years? For one year? Three months? One day? Someone wh
Definition of journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Blogs just aren't as accountable as a major commercial entity like a magazine or newspaper. Just look at Slashdot. It posts flat-out inaccurate and wrong information all the time as front page news articles. But it's not really news, and the editors aren't journalists. They're just posting user-submitted blocks of text with links to other sites, often without vetting the information or even seeing if it was posted already.
If Slashdot was a print magazine, I guarantee facts would get checked a lot more often. But the Internet is seen as a responsibility-less place with no rules, so the attitude is much more lax.
Drudge posts blaring headlines and then edits them 30 minutes later when they turn out to be wrong. He posted that the Oscars had come "back from the dead" in ratings, and then an hour later I checked the site to see a giant headline claiming that ratings had been the lowest in five years. There was no mention of the change.
It's so easy to set up a webserver and post anything. That's why they are not considered journalists. When you're employed by a real news organization, there is a level of accountability and standards that must be met, or you will be fired. That accountability to someone isn't there when you're in your underwear and running your own server to post what you want.
You are asking the wrong question! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't consider weekly world news with their bat boy news to be journalism. I don't consider mindy the teenager complaining about her miserable life journalism.
Blogging is, nevertheless, a step forward for freedom of the press.
Cheers,
Adolfo
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't everyone protected by the First Amendment? If so, should everyone ALSO be protected as journalists?
Why not?
Why is my speech and my actions less protected than someone who works for CBS?
I write on Slashdot; I write on LiveJournal; I write on my own set of forums and a private website. Why do journalists, but not citizens, get protected through journalistic shield laws?
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (Score:3, Informative)
This is a CA case and there is a CA shield law that gives reporters the right to shield their sources. There have b
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
The reason why some states give journalists the right to shield their confidential sources is to encourage whistle-blowing and reporting about government abuses, fraud, etc. Though even on that ground, the courts aren't always willing to accept it (see the Plame/Novak case).
There is no blanket right to shield confidential sources. Getting the scoop on MacWorld is fun and all, but it doesn't
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (Score:3, Informative)
The reason why some states give journalists the right to shield their confidential sources is to encourage whistle-blowing and reporting about government abuses, fraud, etc. Though even on that ground, the courts aren't always willing to accept it (see the Plame/Novak case).
Then why can't individuals be given the right to shield confidential sources in cases where the information is of a whistle-blowing nature, about government abuses, fraud, etc.? The Thinksecret case aside, if you're in a position to
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (Score:3, Insightful)
There are related laws to protect non-journalist whistle-blowers. They generally prohibit firing, reducing pay, changing work duties, and any other forms of retaliation.
I think the reason why journalists are treated differently is because they are in a unique position to disseminate information quickly and widely. Blogs are changing that, though.
I would expect a web-only journalist to be treated the same way as a traditional journalist. Though I would also expect a few years of court challenges befor
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, the "whistle blowing" must be complaining about something that is illegal, such as OSHA violations, labor violations, wage-and-hour violations, environmental violations, etc. -- it is not "whistle blowing" to share trade secrets, to discuss product or marketing materials (or other company confidential info), or to just genera
Re:The Government has no business defining journal (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said there could never be a public interest in exposing something Apple or Microsoft were doing. This case doesn't set the precedent that there will never be a public interest in reporting on illegal activity using a blog. If they were breaking antritrust laws, or doing something else illegal, the shield laws for journalists should apply to bloggers just as much as newspapers.
But let's not kid ourselves. I like reading Think Secret and the rest of the rumor sites. It's fun and I don't think it
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (Score:3, Informative)
Journalists are given a wide latitude to speak, because they help keep our governmental processes open to public inspection, which is one of the polic
Blogging isn't journalism.Journalism is journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
A journalist is a journalist whether they spread they spread their work through newspapers, magazines, trade publications, pamphlets, zines, radio, television, web sites, blogs or even as town crier.
The medium is not the message.
Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean that its the same as "big media", or that it demands the same consideration of conventional news services.
Thats why some in conventional news media are bothered by blogging, they do their thing and they are playing by their own rules outside of the "corporate news sandbox". And yet they still have a ever growing audience that prefers them to the ol' standbys.
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
As I understand it, Apple wanted the name of the source because whoever the source was, he or she was breaking trade secret or NDA laws. Would this (outlaw) source's confidentiality normally have been in another medium?
Re:Question (Score:2)
If it turned out that none of the sources actually did break the law, then revealing them simply would have compromised _their_ privacy without actually furthering the cause of justice. (Further, because the magazine revealed their identity, they could be legally liable to their sources for revealing their names!) The premise of innocent until proven gu
Re:Question (Score:2)
If you violate an NDA to disclose a companies business plans that in no way harm anyone (other than competing businesses), that is what this case is about.
If you break an NDA and in the process cause harm, without there being any public good involved... Well,
journalist protections? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... last I checked, US courts do not recognize the notion that a journalist has the right to refuse to disclose a confidential source. More than one reporter has been thrown in jail for contempt of court over this. So, I'm not real clear here how Think Secret's treatment is any different than what a normal journalist would get?
It sure is (Score:2, Informative)
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or publ
Well, if LGF can bring down Dan Rather, then... (Score:2, Interesting)
Journalism ain't constitutionally protected. (Score:2)
Therefore it seems to be specious to deny to any private individual rights to publish something just because he lacks a certain institutional affiliation.
The Question Isn't (Score:2)
There is no special elite class of people called journalists. If there were, we'd really be in trouble. Everybody's got a point of view and a story to tell. That's the beauty of free speech. My CNN is your Fox News. Your local weekly rag is my neighborhood newsletter. My esteemed orator is your empty-headed shyster.
But using
Just as White House gives blogger press pass. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong Question (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is "Is this an instance in which the Shield Law(s) was meant to be applied".
Blogging as journalism is debatable. But it is protected under the first amendment. That part can not be in question. However, protecting sources that reveal confidential information, when there is no public (necessity/safety/whatever word you want in here) as in the case of the Pentagon Papers, Whistleblowing or otherthings, is what this case was really about.
spectrum (Score:2)
I think blogging is really highlighting the fact that this boundary does not exist. Is there really a fundamental difference between a well-written and researched blog and an article written by a journalist and then posted online?
Basically we have a spectrum from "crappy ranting blog" to
Blog = Journal (Score:5, Interesting)
The spirit of the law is to let the truth get out without compromising the truth-teller's safety / privacy. I think using it to provide insider info that may break NDA's about upcoming products is unfortunate, but we must defend it or else real whistleblowers, such as someone ratting out a pharmaceutical cover-up, will be afraid to tell their story, and the public will get hurt.
I don't agree with the KKK, for an extreme example, but I do agree with their right to speak their minds; and the same goes for thinksecret.com: I think it's sneaky to sell apple's private product info (paid informants, or just ads on the site) and then protect the transaction under the cover of journalism, but to protect other bloggers conveying more vital issues, we must also protect thinksecret.
Similar points raised in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141361&cid=11
Blogger resumes.... (Score:2, Funny)
Web Journalist
myblogsite.com - maintained database of award winning critiques about my life and the world.
1998-Present
Software Tester
Tested thousands of software packages from a newsgroup database and performed quality, speed, and bug evaluation tests.
2000-Present
Auctioneer
Designed and presented auctions for a variety of materials on one of the most popular web-based auction sites.
1997-Present
Marketing Professional
Skilled at utilizing underused servers to send
If its journalism, other laws apply (Score:3, Informative)
Libel: 1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. 2. The act of presenting such material to the public.
Slander: 1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
So many people write things that are blatantly false and damaging, and get away with it without any punative action because they are blogs or forums. There should be some major penalty for putting completely false information out there - and this holds for "old" media companies too.
Re:If its journalism, other laws apply (Score:4, Informative)
Those laws don't apply to "journalists". They apply to everybody.
Therefore, they already apply to "bloggers", since they are members of the set of "everybody".
What is Libel? [medialaw.org]
Look @ me I'm an attention whore pundit (Score:2)
The big difference is that journalists have editors and ethical canons. Bloggers have a computer and an opinion.
Not when the 'journalism' is synonymous with... (Score:2)
And this isn't a free-speech issue, as most would like to disguise their defense as. Nowhere does it say you can break the law when reporting stuff.
The ThinkSecret stuff was nothing like whistle-blowing, or exposing a conspiracy or fraud for the public good; they took a trade-secret (which they are now pretending it wasn't which is total BS) and illegally published information on it. That's not journalism, or even good journalism if you want to degr
Blog Defense Mechanism: Hardcopy Digest? (Score:2)
Because hardcopy periodicals were the standard mass media during the founding of the US republic, they have arbitrarily been given greater protection from government and private restraint of publication than subsequent technologies. Logically and practically, it puts you in the same soup as arguing whether the Founding Fathers intended the bearing of automatic arms or not, but that's Anglo-American jurisprudence for you.
The
Blogging vs Journalism (Score:2)
Or is the average journalist as crappy as the average blogger?
Is Blogging Journalism? (Score:2)
Journalism USED to mean RESEARCH (Score:4, Insightful)
Journalism used to mean researched stories, informing the reader. It seems that 99% of blog content is heresay [reference.com]. And professional journalists are joining the party, reducing their stories to simple "he said, she said" puff pieces.
Journalists receive special protection in exchange for informing and educating society. If they don't uphold their side of the deal, I don't see why they should retain special privileges.
GONZO Journalism! (Score:3)
maybe apple went too far (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with those who think the court doesn't get it because I think that blogging CAN BE simply a lowest-cost-of-entry publishing format, a minor technical distinction exists between that and conventional news media. The caution I suggest is that if we act as if blogging automatically IS journalism then we provide gold settings for all the droppings just becuase they get delivered with the same technology as the diamonds. By intent and content, most blogs don't rate any more protection than a post card, an open piece of first class mail tacked up in public place.
How to make a better distinction between "journalism" and electronic flatulence? The courts should consider [a]who reads it and [b]who writes it or what authority is ascribed to the information. The tricky parts would then just boil down to cases where the author always said "this is just a rumor" but the info was always right on the money.
Oh, and the other 1%? I think I bookmarked all 2000 of them!
Law, not Semantics (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's think clearly and logically for just a moment here. I see a lot of argument about the dictionary meaning of "journalism" and whether or not blogs qualify. I don't want to take a position on that. But I do want to take the position that whatever your opinion is about the journalistic purpose or lack thereof with regards to bloggers or a particular blog, it kind of doesn't matter with respect to this story.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Judges are there to make rulings on matters of law, not to assign value judgements about the worth or societal value or accuracy of a given practice. This isn't a ruling that ThinkSecret isn't "real journalism" or that it's creator isn't a journalist (whatever that means). It's just a legal judgement about whether or not the practices he employs qualify him for protection by certain laws.
I'll even go so far as to make a speculation about what laws were relevant. I'd imagine that TS argued that he could not be compelled to disclose the identity of a source who preferred to remain anonymous because journalists get to protect their sources. I also imagine that the judge found from the facts presented (or lack thereof) that the standard practices which allow for that kind of protection were not generally followed on TS. For example, to shield sources in this way, a journalist usually has to show both that he corroborated this particular piece of info in some way and that it was the regular practice of his outlet so to do. TS clearly doesn't operate that way...which isn't bad or wrong in my opinion, but it would be an abuse of these laws to let them apply in the TS scenario.
Let's not make this about some kind of slam on the blog community. Judges exist to know the rules and to apply them fairly. TS took a shot at interpreting the rules one way, and the judge said no. Don't get distracted by the rhetoric.
What about the disposable element in mass media? (Score:3, Insightful)
The usual media outlets are fire and forget stream without any chance critique and within the next 4-24 hours will be another barage.
News on blogs can last a very long time, propogate, be critiqued, and draw lots of fans, foes, and wholy other points of view. The story might be complete bunk but looking at it as a whole, valuable things can be found.
I haven't really seen the issue of the longevity of stories brought up in the whole debate but I think it's near the heart of the argument.
Do I think bloggers are journalists? You bet- and their quality varies just like the others.
In the middle of the debate there seems to be lots of allegations from mainstream media talking about journalistic integrity, bloggers not having the resources to truly produce news,lack of 'real editors' and rewriting stories without much disgression. I'd love to see mainstream news without access to things like the AP, lexis/nexis, or other news services for a month.
I'd also love to see the news show joe public how they do make the news and what truly differenciates their news from a bloggers. All I've really seen lately is a lot of fire and forget allegations.
"Blogging" Too Broad a Term To Be Useful (Score:3, Interesting)
Likewise, writing is far too broad a term to use with precision. Most of what is written and published is not journalism, regardless of where it is published.
Then there's this: all reporters are journalists, but not all journalists are reporters.
Here's the point: journalism and reporting are types of behavior, rather well-defined, that merit protection. It is irrelevant where the product of that behavior -- the writing -- is published. If it happens to be published in a blog, then it merits protection.
But, simply writing for a blog doesn't, by itself, merit protection, anymore than writing for a newspaper, by itself, merits protection.
That means that if the ThinkSecret guy engaged in something we'd recognize as reporting to get that sotry, then the court's decision should apply to any and all journalists, whether they publish in a blog or not.
No ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: Is blogging journalism ? (Score:3, Funny)
It's the delusion that the world is remotely interested in what you had for breakfast this morning.
Defining Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
"The periodical collection and publication of current news"
Unless the court has a different definition, then blogging is journalism. There is nothing that I can see from the dictionary definition that would exempt it.
Re:You're asking me? (Score:2)
iBLOG! (Score:2)
It's almost scary, I take lots of pictures with my cameraphone [mobog.com], and it would be too bad if I had to worry about what it is that I take pictures of.