Slashdot Mirror
Is Blogging Journalism?
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."
Considering how much research that some people put into their blogs I would definately consider it a form of journalism.
What does the blogosphere think?
See Professor Susan Crawford's piece on this on her blog where she argues the outcome (if not the reasoning) of the Judge's ruling was correct... http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/ 3/6/404732.html
But neither is slashdot
Blogging is editorializing.
If Fox News is considered journalism in this day and age, then sure, why the hell not?!
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Well, if you want to see the complete Fanboy mentality in full masticatory action, check out the Macrumors thread here. I got banned, can you?
Freedom of speech protections apply to ALL individuals. Not just a selected profession.
(Now individuals getting into a high government press conference... that's different...)
Blogging is just a medium through which to deliver content. Like any kind of writing, it can be good, or it can be crap.
one word:
"NO"
it is journaling and commentary.
about the same thing as wasting your time reading the letters to the editor.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Caveat: ThinkSecret is not a blog.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
What with journalistic ethics taking a number of hits over the past few years (Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, "Jeff Gannon", et al) - and, Mac rumor "blogs" aside, the mainstream media is beginning to pay heed to bloggers at all levels of the news cycle. 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.
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.
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Asking that question would be akin to asking "Are newspapers journalism"?
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
1st amendment applies to all Americans equally.
All free speech is journalism.
No group of Americans has more rights than another.
No. And shouldn't be given the same protection.
That said. Think Secret from what I've seen isn't exactly a 'blog', as it resembles game news sites more than anything else.
And boy do I hate that fucking term.
Although I think that in this particular case the research was definately there, anyone can post anything they want online and call it news. I just think that since there are no guidelines to what can be called a news blog (in the objective sense) it's only fair that the bloggers are not given the same protections as "real" journalists.
Think for yourself, question authority
So the real question:
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?
GPL Deconstructed
Journalism is irrespective of any medium -- and that includes blogs.
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.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
I don't see blogging as journalism, never did. Journalism is (supposedly) unbiased reporting of news and events, relaying facts and accounts. Most blogs i've read are more of someone's opinions on a piece of news or event. I would place the majority of blogs into the editorial bin as opposed to what i consider real journalism.
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.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
If a blogger can go into E3 and get press access, then blogging is journalism.
Ssshh, don't tell the E3 people that or a lot of us gamers wouldn't find any other way to go into E3 without the press pass.
Bloggers at the White House--and in court
FAQ: Blogging on the job
Pardon my ignorance, but in traditional journalism, is the confedentiality of a source legally protected if the source is demonstrably breaking the law?
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?
Stupid like a fox!
Which blog were we talking about?
The smartest man in the whole, wide world really don't know that much. - Mose Allison
the judge's refusal to extend journalist protections to Think Secret
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?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
This is how Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it:
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 public interest
According to 'c' we are...
fuvoo: watch something
After all, the blogosphere had more journelistic integrity that Dan Rather, so either the Blogs are Journelism, or Dan Rather isn't. Tough call.
...is bloggers.
I agree with the court's ruling in this case. Most blogs that I read are statements of opinion, but that doesn't make them journalism. Yes, bloggers write on subjects of interest, but many do not even attempt to present well-rounded, unbiased arguments.
The title of "journalist" should be reserved for those who are really journalists.
Fitzghon
Freedom of speech and of the press are.
Therefore it seems to be specious to deny to any private individual rights to publish something just because he lacks a certain institutional affiliation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Whether bloggers are journalists. It's obvious to most all who think about it that they are. The question is whether journalists should conceal sources that are doing criminal things.
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 free speech to cover up somebody leaking information to hurt a company is wrong, blogger or no. The judge made the right call.
According to CNN , the White House just gave a blogger, Garrett M. Graff (of Fishbowl DC) a press pass. If blogging doesn't count as journalism, it will soon.
California law says that broadcasters are protected...
well...
Broadcast: To simultaneously send the same message to all the users on a network.
What is a webpage but a broadcast, and a web browser but a client for viewing the broadcast. I understand that the browser requests the site but still. A multicast client has to request a join and that is still a multicast.
If I wanted easy I wouldnt be an engineer or a patriot.
The question is not "Is blogging Journalism".
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.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The restriction of what is legally recognised as Journalism to commercial news entities is a scary thing.
here's how webster defines these terms:
Main Entry: journal
Pronunciation: 'j&r-n&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, service book containing the day hours, from Middle French, from journal, adjective, daily, from Latin diurnalis, from diurnus of the day, from dies day -- more at DEITY
1 a : a record of current transactions; especially : a book of original entry in double-entry bookkeeping b : an account of day-to-day events c : a record of experiences, ideas, or reflections kept regularly for private use d : a record of transactions kept by a deliberative or legislative body e : LOG 3, 4
2 a : a daily newspaper b : a periodical dealing especially with matters of current interest
3 : the part of a rotating shaft, axle, roll, or spindle that turns in a bearing
Main Entry: journalist
Pronunciation: -n&l-ist
Function: noun
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2 : a person who keeps a journal
Main Entry: journalism
Pronunciation: 'j&r-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
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 public interest
while a blog could be considered a journal, it appears less so that a blogger could be considered a journalist that practices journalism. interestingly, the definition differs when looking at different english language dictionaries. take for example this one which would seem to exclude most types of blogging without question due to the limits of the media listed...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Gee, I actually hold a degree in journalism.. sweet. This is about the first topic on slashdot that actually fits with what I studied for. On topic though. It may not be journalism in the traditional sense of mass push-publishing that the older generation is used to.. ;-) It is however still free speech, which should be protected just like every other instance of free speech. I don't care if the author writes his articles under the banner of some large media company or on his private blog. The articles don't change and neither should their rights.
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
As often occurs, I think one of the problems here is that some people (and especially the legal people) want a clear cut-off between "journalist" and "non-journalist." In the real world, such sharp boundaries do not exist.
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 "mediocre blog" to "good blog"/"decent online article" to "great blog"/"online article" and finally "articles in highly respected newspapers," etc.
We will never come up with a satisfactory definition. So perhaps each case should be judged on its own merits?
A blog is an online journal. A journalist is "one who keeps/writes a journal". So how is a TV Anchor more of a "journalist" than a blogger?
8 47784
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
$8.95/mo web hosting
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 thousands of advertisements to double opt-in prospects via electronic mail.
"Cognitive Dissonance" I beleive is the term for it.
Note that you have been viciously modded down by them for pointing out an ugly truth.
He is a GAY prostitute you know.
Left Bloggers outed him.
That is more newsworthy than Dan Rather falling for one of Karl Rove's dirty tricks.
Yes I agree Bloggers are not journlist per se, because like Drudge they slant the truth for their own causes. The real guts of journlism is not slants and versions of the truth its the truth or about the truth, reporting what is out there. That is factual and has some facts to back it up.
Now as to this case, we scream the government should stay out of the web, and that its laws do not govern the web. If thinksecret wins, does that mean the government can now intervene in things that we did not want them in before? If apple wins, this just means that the government can not extend it boundries to the internet. Whereas thinksecret wins it sets a precendent for the government to censor and intervene as they need to.
given to "journalists" (and there is a sort of inferred right because the court just decided that bloggers don't have the same "rights"), then such a right should be granted to all individuals performing a "journaling" function.
I blog. I am not a professional journalist, though. That being said, I should *STILL* be able to say what I want, and not have to divulge my sources to anyone. Hell, I could be full of shit, or spot-on dandy. I should not fear being sued or violating other people's personal information for what I post in my blog, however.
It's almost scary, I take lots of pictures with my cameraphone, and it would be too bad if I had to worry about what it is that I take pictures of.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
The Susan Crawford blog made an important distinction. This is a case in which trade secrets have been divulged, hence the breaking of an NDA. NOT a blogger doing what would be referred to as 'journalism' but a blogger exposing trade secrets to the world. This is slightly different, if not much different.
Someone whistleblowing on Enron should get and deserves more protection than someone talking about, in this case, Apple's newest ad campaign. One is important in all respects to our society, and the other is just upshowing for upshowing's sake.
I agree with the whole idea of keeping bloggers safe, but this - in the basic form - is not protection even journalists would expect. "We at Wired convinced an Intel employee to publish for us the source code of the ICE compiler directives. Here it is." is what this should be compared to, not, "This is Ken Leigh's unknown employee's videotape of him sodomizing an intern's poor little doggie."
One is more impressive, and both (well, as far as I'm concerned) should be legal... However, one is legal and the other isn't, mainly because when you work for Intel you sign an NDA. Of course, the way government is going you sign an NDA to work there, too, and that's probably one of the biggest problems with the way we're starting to do things in the US.
My little site.
... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
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...
What makes a journalist a journalist is the same thing that makes an artist, an artist. Anything can be art. Anyone can be an artist.
Saying that blogs aren't journalism is akin to saying that a twisted chunk of metal isn't art. It's only an opinion and there's no way to prove it either way.
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.
I mean blogger.
The big difference is that journalists have editors and ethical canons. Bloggers have a computer and an opinion.
What you're saying is: stuff I think is importand is journalism. Stuff I don't think is important isn't journalism.
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.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These rights are granted TO ALL PEOPLE !!!
Not just to those who own a press.
Not just the press. But Apple (and other corporations) can control the press through $$$ but not the individual... so they want the distinction.
(That's my interpretation. I realize others will argue differently.)
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 degrade that profession and call ThinkSecret that.
AC comments get piped to
1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.
Well according to 6 even the bathroom wall writing is journalism.
According to every other definition here the web is never mentioned, but television is.
So... Yes. Blogging certainly is Journalism.
And... No. Blogging is not Journalism.
Just look at every other post on this /. story/blog and you will see my conclusions match.
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.
Therefore, I posit that unpaid bloggers wishing to protect their speech from regulation, censorship, or prior restraint would "only" need to get thee down to the local printers or repro shop on a sceduled basis to print digests. Slap a Volume and Issue number on the header, drop some copies at the local bar, make cheap paid subscriptions available from your web site, and you're a "real" publisher.
Sure, this is more hassle than planting your ass in front of your terminal, but if/until Congress passes laws explicitly protecting on-line content, I'll rationalize that it's healthy to get out of the house a little more often.
Luke, help me take this mask off
These days, the average blogger is more reliable than the average journalist.
Or is the average journalist as crappy as the average blogger?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
If someone posted the exact same information on the web before the term blogg came into popular use, whould it not have been journalism? Does the existance of other people's bloggs change that?
First ammendment rights (or any ammendment rights) must not be taken away by police or courts who decide who qualifies to get them and who does not. It's not OK to say that the NY Times is journalism but that the NY Post or the National Enquirer are not. It's not OK to do so in this case either.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
However, it is also quite obvious that most bloggers are *NOT* journalists, and don't come even remotely close. All they are doing is writing a diary that happens to be visible all around the world. However, there's nothing about having "readers" that per se makes it into journalism, even if you are eager to extend the definition of journalism into the new media.
There is obviously a key shared activity, in that journalism and blogging both involve writing, but journalism is much more than just writing. It requires a firm desire to find out the truth and present it honestly--and that is precisely why *REAL* journalism is under such vigorous attack from propagandists of every stripe. Journalists are dedicated to truth, but propagandists are dedicated to a set of beliefs without *ANY* regard for truth--but that just destroys the propagandists credibility.
So how can propagandists get anyone to believe them? The two main approaches are obvious--tell lies or attack the truth (obscuring and devaluing it). This Gannon/Guckert affair is one of the most amazing examples to come to light--which only means there'll probably be a more amazing one tomorrow. However, to recap, Guckert is a propagandist spewing his faith but lying to pretend that he's a journalist who's actually telling the truth. Meanwhile, his personal truth (of his own involvement with illegal activities) is the real truth he would like to destroy and obscure. (Then again, you can certainly understand why anyone might try to hide criminal activities.)
One more comment. Good writing is a fine thing, but most blogs are *NOT* good writing. Most blogs should be compared to verbal diarrhea. Writing alone is not enough. Editing is required, but editing is a dying art. Getting off the topic, but editing also has a set of principles, just like journalism.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Even journalism isn't journalism anymore!
Journalism used to mean researched stories, informing the reader. It seems that 99% of blog content is heresay. 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.
It doesn't matter!!
In the case cited in the article it is not a question of whether or not they were journalists and thereby covered by shield laws. It is a matter of releasing trade secrets which could damage a company, which is not covered by shield laws.
Everyone does have the same right to say the same thing no matter what their profession, within laws that supersede the first amendment, such as trade secret protection laws.
It doesn't matter who you are, or what you are doing if it's against the relevant law, it's against the law.
-Mikey P
that neither A nor B applies to bloggers. Thus restricting free speech to a benighted few... my original point...
The "shield laws" that apply in certain cases for protecting anonymous sources don't protect journalists in all cases.
In this particular case the issue is that information that was protected under NDA was disclosed. The information in question wasn't related to a felony or government abuse but rather a corporate trade secret. The company in question has every right to pursue the people who violated the terms of their NDA. In this case, the evidence of the violation is the posting of the information to a web site. Had the information been printed up in PC Week Apple would still have the right to sue the publisher for that information.
Is this good PR? Definitely not. Is it legal? Definitely.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
How is this different from licencing journalists. Remember, requiring licences means licences can be denied by a branch of the goverment. Is this what Ben Franklin would want, or do these modern judges think they are wiser than the founding fathers.
That's a facetious question - of course they do.
And this judge has, by his ruling, denied a journalist license to defendant.
Is Slashdot journalism?
Sure it is, as long as you say what we want you to.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
In the case of blogging.. I would have to say that intent should be what constitutes journalism. Think Secret and other apple rumor sites intent is aimed solely at obtaining private information about products and making it public before Apple decides to go public about it. That's closer to espionage than journalism. But in this case.. it's not another corporation who is after the information but rather the public... but it's the same idea. Obtaining private product data and disseminating it to a third party is not journalism in this case. I believe that the judge did the right thing.
Is it possible what we have here is a total misunderstanding of the Internet medium? Could this be a case where the judge has no clue what the Internet or websites do, and how they distribute their content? Is this a case where the judge is interperting the word press and thinking linotype?
--- Location Unknown
"Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material."0 49112.htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/11
Wasn't this covered in the last discussion? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the hell you want. Slander, abuse, harrassment, libel, and more all prohibit your right to say anything you want.
As I said last time, if you're a Coke insider and you post the top secret Coca-Cola formula to a blog, don't be surprised when your ass gets sued for revealing trade secrets.
Is today's journalism really journalism???
I think a major factor that determines journalism is accountability.
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.
Why yes, it's GONZO Journalism!@!
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
If open-source software is software (and Apple certainly thinks it is) then grassroots journalism is journalism.
I think Apple really stepped in some shit with this lawsuit. I hope they come to their senses. In 10 years this will look pretty stupid.
This, combined with the DRM iTunes monopoly, has put Apple several notches lower in my eyes. I still love their products, but they are on "evil watch". As is Google.
When Apple turns evil, what will we do? (Yes I remember when Apple was pretty evil before, but they were cleansed of sin during the lean years).
Just ask Robert Novak. He outed a CIA operative and is he being forced to betray the confidentiality of his sources? No.
While thinking philosophically, we see problems in places where there are none. -Wittgenstein
It matters not whether bloggers are journalists. Judges can compel journalists (or "journalists") to reveal their sources for a variety of reasons, most pertinent being if a crime has been committed, gathering evidence for a civil trial or any other reason for which a judge decides to subpoena a journalist.
The lazy corporate media in the U.S. is cowed by the government and less interested in investigation than it is in investigating whose cocktail parties they're getting to attend. Many bloggers have worked hard to get to the bottom of real stories. Unfortunately, many others have simply spread lies and FUD.
It's not even a real WORD!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
you cannot sign your first amendment rights away. (well, unless that signing has to do with revoking one's own citizenship, but that's neither here nor there.)
Since when is a fuzzy definition of "journalism" the measure by which freedom of speech is allowed to us citizens of this here Amurrka?
Journalism is protected because it's free speech. Free speech ISN'T protected because it happens to be "journalism."
Let's get away from this what is and what isn't journalism tripe because it's not the issue. (And if it is, we're in a shitload of trouble in this country.)
The people inside Apple who signed non-disclosure agreements are beholden to Apple. The people they talked to, who signed nothing...AREN'T.
Anything else said on the matter is word salad.
More to the point, is what the major networks pumping out as news really journalism? Think about that. ;)
It astounds me how people go on arguing over a faslity; the judge did NOT rule that "web journalists do not count"! I said it last time this was on slashdot and I'll say it again; from TFA: "Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling", but I guess it's not sensational and spectacular enough to keep to the truth of what really happened. Even if they were print journalists from the oldest establishment the judge would've ruled just the same; this is NOT a case about corporate secrets, blogging, journalism, or free speech... it is a case about contracts (NDA = contract), and "contracts are promises that the law will enforce", hence he will force them to reveal who broke the contract if there was no other way to enforce the law. Journalists are NOT above the law and do NOT have the right to obstruct justice. While the law provides them with protections for the confidentiality of their sources it is explicit that those should be overriden to serve four countervailing interests if the information can not be obtained by other means: "the right of an accused person to a full defence, the interest of litigants in a civil trial to obtain evidence (Apple!), prevention of crime and safeguarding public order or national security".
While CBS does lean slightly conservative, it's nowhere near as conservative as typical U.S. media.
Having 65 Democrats/Liberal commentators shown on CBS vs 91 Republican/Conservative ones isn't that bad, given that there were 5 items of liberal commentary vs 5 items of conservative commentary (Liberal commentary in mainstream U.S. media actually equal to conservative commentary? Amazing!)
CBS is so close to neutral in their coverage, one can almost even forgive them for "mistating" facts to pretend that Social Security will have financial problems sooner than it will (parroting administration lies), and refusing to accept a paid advertisement for The United Church of Christ stating "Jesus didn't turn anyone away - neither do we" because other so-called "Christian" churches preaching hate in Jesus's name might not like it.
On a related note, does anyone else find it to be something of a double-standard for Slashdot to be asking this question about Apple's behavior against ThinkGeek when it once threatened legal action against DailySlash in an IRC interview for infringement by posting summaries of Slashdot's articles?
It should really read "Blogging is the New Journalism".
Warning: rant ahead
I don't like the fact that the people who write and report things not available elsewhere are lumped in with teenage Xanga users who complain about their English teachers or the 'digerati' RSS-feed meta-meta-meta-trackback circlejerk crew who just post a bunch of headlines about a comment that some guy made on another guys blog regarding a sarcastic comment made in reference to a NYT article from 3 days ago.
Bloggies.com defines a weblog as "A 'weblog' is defined as a page with dated entries." Now that seems a little presumptuous to backwards-include a large percentage of all websites to fit your trendy tea party.
AppleInsider has been operating since long before anyone except Dave Winer was using the term 'weblog' and when posting 50 times a day while creating no actual content of value was known as an "E/N Site" [Everything/Nothing]. The association of the defendants in this case with the 'blogosphere' as a whole is doing them a disservice and might just fuck the whole first amendment.
It's impossible to participate in the world when you're too busy sitting at home and making up snarky comments about it as it passes you by in your RSS reader.
Apparently it all depends.
If it's ThinkSecret, some people say "yes".
Those were the same people that want to hang that Republican guy at the White House who had press creditials, but only an online presence.
Can't have double standards here folks. Both should be protected, whether you agree with them or not.
but to say "web journalists don't count" also goes too far. It implies that bloggers are all journalists. The blog in question clearly was journalisitic but 99% of the pap on *.blogspot.com is porn, commercials, foaming at the mouth on the politcal and relgious right and mostly self absorbed diarizing...are we protecting that? The so-called blogosphere has way more defamatory, inflamatory, libelous and privacy invading contetent than any print media would get away with and I include buttwipe like the National Enquirer in that. Most of them are read by nearly noone but the authors so there is no big stink... are we protecting that?
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!
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
These random trolls always make me laugh
Alternately, are a bunch of guys on their back porches with telescopes astronomy? I think what we're seeing here is the rise of amateur journalism. And just like amateur astronomy, every once in a long, long while somebody produces something that makes the New York Times look like a bunch of slackers, but mostly it's just a bunch of untrained babblers exposing their ill-informed opinions.
// This is not a sig.
When this news hit, I took the position that Apple was actually correct. Freedom of the press is about a general right to publish your speech. To that end it is a corollary to the freedom of speech to keep the government from passing laws that say you can say whatever you want, provided that it never leaves your house and gets disseminated. It is far more important than letting some reporter find the latest story, it and the second amendment are the two things that guard your right to speak and be heard.
The issue here is that Apple finally had enough of Think Secret and sued them. This was a long time coming and TS knew they were violating the law. I don't think they should get press shield protection because of the fact that the people of California voted for their press shield constitutional clause in a popular referendum. If you want to change it, convince the people of California, but I as a Virginian am not concerned by this. I'd fight such a thing in my own state, but I certainly would not begrudge the right of the people of California to decide who should get extra protection.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are already whistleblower laws that protect people brining evidence of wrongdoing forward, and those are at least federal if not in most state laws. If that be the case, then private citizens don't need shield law protection because there are already laws out there that protect them. The NY Times is getting hit hard for not revealing the identities of the people who revealed Valerie Plame. They violated national security for nothing and are now paying the price. As they should. Press shield laws are only good when they protect honest sources who are scared of retribution for brining a crime public.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
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.
adam b.
This court thinks they can. I think they're wrong, and hope this is overturned on appeal.
To me a Journalist is someone who seeks out the news and broadcasts it in some form. New Apple products and upcoming price cuts are news of use to all computer buyers. The Internet is the finest, most unregulated (which is what makes it the finest), most affordable broadcast medium ever invented. They are Journalists.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wrong question. We should ask "Is Journalism journalism?" In most cases, the answer is a resounding "No!"
I update my LiveJournal, therefore I am a Journalist.
This is the blog of someone whom I am ... let's just say, "angry with right now." No, it has nothing to do with me directly, but suffice it to say some of the inflammatory (and retarded) logic this woman uses when she writes on her blog is extremely inflammatory to some people. Some of it WAS defammatory as well (we can prove that it was indeed false), but she has since removed the one snippett of evidence condemning her before I was able to mirror the offending content.
In any case, if any slashdotters what to have a fun time with a hyopcritical Christian who has upset me greatly, have at it! Yes, this is probably childish and stupid of me to incite such things via Slashdot, but hey, I need to vent my anger somewhere, and here is where everyone else seems to have fun doing so. I recommend reading the top 3-5 posts. Guaranteed a laugh, I promise.
I can't find the article, but I remember Slashdot reporting on a Supreme Court ruling (I think in 2004) saying journalistic protections extend to anyone exercising the role of a journalist. You don't have to do it full time; you just have to be doing what journalists do.
A blogger could easily be considered a journalist. I expect the lower court ruling to be overturned on appeal (if there is an appeal) if the blogger can show any socially redeeming intent.
Here's the rule: if a website (blog or whatever) includes good information, then it's journalism. If it contains junk, then it's not journalism.
Therefore, according to the McCain-Feingold law, the only information we can get about political candidates 30 days before an election is junk.
These comments do express the opinions of my employers, and, personally, I think they're complete rubbish.
I would argue that if you had to find a point and call it "journalism", it would be at the level of being moderately well researched, basically factual and essentially something that reflects the reality of events. It doesn't have to cover every detail, or reflect perfectly, but it needs to be good enough that you can recognize the reflection, if asked.
I would argue that ANY blog that achieved such a standard should be considered journalism, for any purpose, including legal purposes.
I would also argue that any newspaper, any talk-show, any media whatsoever that would normally be considered "journalism" should NOT count as such, if it did NOT meet the above standards.
But, then, maybe that would be too rational.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
didn't really think the plutocracy would not put a stop to free speech on the net? once the first amendment no longer applies, kiss it good-bye.
He'd say bloggin is more like posting screeds on the town bulletin board and hanging a pencil by a string next to them with lots of blank pages to write in.
Blogging can be journalism, but it almost never is. Just because you print out 20 copies of your fanzine and give them to your friends at school doesn't make you an editor or publisher. I base that on my publishing magazines which are stored in the Library of Congress, of course.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Most blogs are crap. Most mainstream is crap.
Anytime someone makes something public on a regular and changing basis it is journalism and is guarenteed all the protections. Apple is wrong, mind you at the scared 'middle management' level. Perhaps that is easy to say from Europe?
As a part owner of a provider, we have told both the RIAA and MPAA to "fsck off" and we can rightfully do so. We'd do the same with Apple or any other corporation.
Please, defy the court order or better, move to a provider in a free country!
(I shouldn't, but this is half of the fun!)
Who is to decide whether someone did their research or not? Well, I don't know, any sane, rational person who asks the journalist "Hey journalist, where the hell did you get all that information for that story you wrote? Who did you talk to, that I can go and confirm what they said? What books did you read that I can go read them myself?" This isn't one of those cases where we can bull-shit with "it's all relative". It seems to me that 99% of the blogs out there are whinny, opinionated, stupid crap, perhaps on the same level as some of the sensationalist crap you get on Fox News.
But more seriously, there are many, many real journalists out there who do actually take pride in their craft, who do make an effort to report the facts as objectively as possible. Blogs aren't treated like news outlets because there are professional and societal controls on news outlets that try to ensure what goes into a paper is more like objective news and not opinionated crap. It wouldn't make sense to try to apply such standards to a blog exactly because most bloggers are publishing their own opinions (and want to keep it that way). Without those standards, treating anything that comes out of a blog as news is a bad idea.
There is no blanket right to shield confidential sources. Getting the scoop on MacWorld is fun and all, but it doesn't serve the public interest in any way.
... in the extreme example, Bush/Clinton could define anyone not pro right-extremest/democrat as "not a journalist" and completely undermine the intent and application of the first amendment, and the effectiveness of the fifth estate (or at least what effectiveness remains after the fifth estate's willing self-evisceration under the current administration).
Really?
Are you certain of that?
And are you certain that will always be the case? Substitute Microsoft for Apple, and draconian "trusted computer" measures that will disallow most third party and all free software from running on your computer, ever, for the specs of Apple's latest hardware, and suddenly getting the scoop, irrespective of NDAs, serves a massive public interest, one which the copyright-cartel beholden traditional press is unlikely to cover at all. Hell, don't even bother substituting "Microsoft" for "Apple," in the above (even if the trends show that as likly). That would be of major concern regardless of who was behind it.
Just because you don't see a public policy implication in today's leak, doesn't mean (a) you're right (there could be more to it than you think, though in this case I'd say that possibility asymptoticly approaches zero) or (b) tommorows leak will be equally devoid of service to the public interest (whatever the hell that is defined to be today, or tommorow when the definition probably changes yet again).
The real question should be: if the bloggers had been card-carrying journalists in a traditional medium, would the law have allowed them to keep their sources secret? If yes, then it should apply to bloggers. If not, then this entire discussion is moot.
Certainly the reasons present in the writeup of the court's decision are at odds with the Surpeme Court's opinion that overturned the SCA, in which they said (and I paraphrase) "the internet deserves at least as much protection under the first amendment as traditional print media." This might not be a first amendment issue with respect to keeping one's sources secret, but it might well be a first amendment issue with respect to defining one set of journalists "special" and another "not," or even implying that the government gets to choose who it considers journalists and who it doesn't. There is an inherent conflict of interest there
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It's not about revealing your sources... It's about freedom of speech. If a journalist has the right to source secrecy, so does the individual in the act of self-publishing.
If an individual can't protect his sources, then a source isn't going to come forward with information.
If a source violates an NDA, that's Apple's problem. Not the one relaying the information to the public.
Were journalists really any better than bloggers, or did they just want us to believe that?
Consider how difficult it was to check the assertions of journalists before the arrival of the internet.
The CBS memos affair was a good example. What did they get away with in the past simply because it was too difficult to verify their sources?
Sarcasm aside: considering how little research many newspaper and TV 'journalists' put into some of their stories, these days, if you used that as the measuring stick for (freedom of) 'the press' I think we'd have precious few press credentials out there.
Journalism runs the gamut from hard-core investigative journalism to random blatherings of a social reporter -- and that's the case on both the 'net and the 'tube. Unless the judge is willing to strip CNN of their 'press' protection for reports (also) published on www.cnn.com, then I think we have an 'equal protection of the law' issue here.
One high-profile example of weblogs beating out so-called professional journalism was when it took less than an hour for the 'blogs to start ripping apart Dan Rather's letters about George Bush's Military so-called service. (It's not that I consider GWB the model of honorable duty, but a faked letter is a faked letter). I think that some of the AbuGharib abuse issues also surfaced on the 'bloggs first.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Whether Blogging is journalism or not is beside the point. The real issue here is why should journalists be given a free pass to break the law and protect criminals. How can you justify that writing about criminals is more beneficial to society than bringing those criminals to justice in a court of law? Journalists act as though they are given a free pass to protect criminals simply by being journalists. Journalists or bloggers or anyone who protects the identity of criminals should be given the same penalty as someone who harbors a fugitive from the law i.e. a felony conviction.
Didn't slashdot first begin as what is known as a blog today, with links and his own comments to articles that CmdrTaco found interesting?
not trying to troll here, some say journalism involves research on the topic. sometimes you might just have to RTFA before posting stuff about it? maybe typo-free in what you post? but until this day, you still get false facts from time to time posted in the front page, spelling mistakes, incorrect grammar... (like this very comment!)
my blog
Something I rarely see explored in the blogs VS 'regular media' debate is the role that the shelf life and interactivity of stories both play.
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.
Firefox &
Is publishing on paper journalism?
"Blogging" has developed into a beast. I'm not talking about "weblogging", but "blogging". Everyone's trying to put the stamp "blogging" on anything that's serially published and has an author. What's left? Pretty much static pages and company web sites. Weblogging, at its core, is little more than del.icio.us-like rundowns of nifty links and commentary around them. "Blogging" used to mean "weblogging". As the term "blogging" grew more popular, it seemed to lead to "blogs" having more and more material unrelated to actual "weblogging". "Blogging" is now just a buzzword that can be applied to everything published serially.
What Think Secret are doing is editorial reporting. I qualify editorial reporting as journalism. I don't qualify weblogging as being journalism. And as I've already said, "blogging" is just a label of a certain way to run a web site. Asking if that's journalism is like asking if publishing on paper is journalism.
doesn't make them the press.
Just as saying Iraq had WMD didn't mean there ever were any. In point of fact, there weren't.
The White House could say Mars was made of Red Cheese, but it would still just be a rusty planet, lacking cheese.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
court's decision that Web journalists don't count
Given Jeff Gannon-gate and that a blogger was able to get a White House press day pass finally, it seems the courts (blogger not a journalist=> must reveal sources) and executive branch (bloggers are journalists => can justify day passes!) have different views on the matter.
Or perhaps the same view
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I think the real question is where do you draw the line? I would most certainly consider some of the blogs I read journalistic. However, the person blogging about what they ate for breakfast over one LiveJournal .... um, no.
In my case I took a small news event that had local significance only on the surface and showed how the local event would effect things on a world scale. It was my analysis and ability to make the story relevant to people on other continents that turned my blog rate into a story.
Most blogs are crap, with little research and shoddy research at best. Heck if you look at the last US election Kerry should have won in a landslide according to the blogscape. All that being said though, some people do create quality blogs that have journalism quality writing in them. The answer is, they can be journalism, but usually aren't.
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 hurts anybody. But Apple is totally within their rights in figuring out who violated their NDA, and firing them. Apple isn't trying to cover up a crime or unethical behavior -- they announced everything in the ThinkSecret reports at a conference. The laws that journalists use to keep sources confidential are completely inapplicable.
-Esme
Mod parent horizontally +/-0 Rumsfeld.
You actually made a completely logically consistent response, which looks like it answer the question, but doesn't at all.
The question isn't, "is a blog journalism?" It's, "is blogging jounralism?" (in other words, it's not, "is the medium a discipline?" as you claim, it's "is one discipline a subset of another discipline?")
So yeah, blogging is journalism if it's about timely news. It's not coincidence that "journalism" starts with the word "journal".
and
From the Merriam-Webster dictonaryn ary&va=journalism&x=0&y=0:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictio
Main Entry: journalism
Pronunciation: 'j&r-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
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 public interest"
Journalism is a profession. It has its rules, its ethics... and it has to be learned. And you actually present your work as journalism - which exposes it to professional critics and peer reviewing.
Blogging is certainly nothing like that. Would you call someone who gives random medical advice on a web forum a doctor? There may be some real doctors doing that, but there can also be just anyone.
I just find it too easy to claim yourself a journalist when it's convenient and not have to actually be one, that is if you put up some real lame articles on your blog, you can always say you were just "goofing around". This is a two-way street. So, being free of responsibilty and ethics, a blog cannot be associated with any professional activity. That's my view on this.
Journalism is writing about something, be it a journal of your personal hygene habits [or lack thereof] or of Government opression. News is in the eye of the beholder.
Let's not confuse journalism with news.
Apple didn't argue "bloggers aren't journalist" it argued "this guys aren't journalists." Journalist do not have the protection this guys think they have. If a crime was committed by the source a judge will force the journalist to reveal it, the only protection is that revealing the source has to be a last resource after all other avenues are exhausted, Apple is arguing they are. Apple can't deny first amendment rights to anyone... Only congress can do that. Just read the damn thing!
Judging by the number of new blogs that I see on a daily basis we can assume that the total number of blogs in existence approaches infinity.
Nearly every one of these blogs is either some clod's diary of the daily mundane or a rant session not meant as anything other than...well a rant.
For those blogs that intend to be journalistic only a handful exercise due diligence to ensure the facts presented are based on reality. More often than not, many of these blogs are rants disguised as news or political commentary. Nothing journalistic about them.
This being the case we can safely assume there are only a finite number of blogs that can actually be considered journalistic in nature.
Since a finite number divided by an infinite number is essentially 0 we can say with certainty the blogging is indeed not journalism
{I would be amiss for not giving thanks to Douglas for what he has taught me about mathematical reasoning}
~CrnbrdEater
... blogging isn't anything. The word has lost all meaning. "Blogging" - a disgusting word, it sounds like explosive vomiting. The only more disgusting groovy tech word is "bots". Do you know what bots really are? Think "very disgusting parasite". But I digress...
Seriously, though, the term "weblogging" refers to an enormous variety of web-activities. Most weblogs are just relatively frequently updated collections of annotated links, and nothing more.
The word "Blog" confers no magical, or even meaningful, status on the "blogger".
- sgage
http://oak.psych.gatech.edu/~epic/ols-master.html [flash] seems to be the general direction of things because of the so-called "blogosphere".
My own two cents? I think it goes back to journalistic integrity. I run a blog of sorts as well. Do I consider myself a journalist? No. Are there some bloggers who consider themselves journalists? Yes, but I wouldn't necessarily call all of them that.
Slashdot: where repeating an article in a post is "+5 Insightful"
It's more likely that certain bloggers are members of the class Journalist, but many are not.
Thus, even though many journalists aren't bloggers, and many bloggers aren't journalists, there are some journalists who are bloggers - but may or may not practice journalism in their blogs, and some bloggers who may practice journalism in their blogs.
For example, let's say that I had been a journalist at one time (true, in my days at SFU and Capilano College), but never maintained a blog then (even though I was on the Net). Just because I posted some stuff on an online journal and contributed news to a friend's blog, doens't mean that I'm a journalist now. More of a news distributor, or perhaps a columnist or opinion writer, really. But not entitled to be considered an active journalist.
This doesn't preclude some bloggers from being journalists in every sense of the word - there is no size requirement on the number of staff for a media outlet. But professionalism is something sorely lacking, even if one had a journalism degree.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I used to get into trade shows free by making up press credentials and once used "Roul Duke, writer for Bitter Reality Magazine, a Thompson-Hunter publication". The gate-guy at NCGA '90 didn't even blink and when I asked him if that was the weirdest one they had here today he said, "no, the writer for ``cruise ship cuisine'' is"; I picked up my badge and my 3 boxes of free conference proceesings, "A $1500 value". I was too late for the press breakfast. (I am a programmer, voss is mit morning schtuph?) I still have the badge.
Try that by saying you write for a blog. I don't think it counts any more than saying you write for usenet, that is to say: "no".
I have no idea what "journalism" is or how it's qualified, but IMO, bloggers aint jouranlists, they're just people that keep their diaries online.
Maybe in ten years it will be. But the acid test now, as then still seems to be "show me your name in a print publication or a letter from your editor (which is obvioulsly easy to laserprint).
Need Mercedes parts ?
Think about the word Journalism.
Journal-ism
vs.
writing in a journal (weblog).
Same thing.
Is having a website journalism? Is speaking through a microphone journalism?
Journalism is an activity that you can conduct, whose product can be published in any number of ways, including through blogs.
Some bloggers may be journalists. Some journalists may be bloggers.
The status of bloggers as journalists is irrelevant for this purpose. I can find no constitutional basis for the protection of journalist's sources, or those of anyone else. (please correct me if I'm wrong.)
That said, this brings two questions to mind; First, what if I hear something that someone is not supposed to reveal and I tell a friend? That friend then tells the police. Am I required to tell the authorities where I heard it? This has probably already been settled in law, but IANAL. Second, Why are Journalists given special status in regard to their treatment under the law? Isn't this what the Bill of Rights was attempting to prevent?
There has long been a disturbing trend in the U.S. toward making the job of law enforcement easier at the expense of individual freedom. But if my neighbor knows who committed a crime against me or my family, and won't tell authorities, it mearly make him a rotten person. It shouldn't make him a criminal. One of the costs of freedom is that sometimes the criminals get away. The alternative is to have the criminals running your life.
... do journalists blog?
Who doesn't like free music?
If you're defining journalism as "reporting news" then blogging generally doesn't rise to that standard. News reporting, done properly, relates information verified against three or more sources, not including the reporter. It is not necessarily accurate, but due dilligence was applied to accuracy. While some blogs may meet these criteria, I would argue that they transcend the genre and are, in fact, journalism.
If you're defining journalism as simply "publishing unreliable information" then blogging is definitely an eligible synonym.
Journalism is writing about something, be it a journal of your personal hygene habits [or lack thereof] or of Government opression. News is in the eye of the beholder.
Let's not confuse journalism with news.
Hey...thanks for clueing us in to your 3rd grade understanding of journalism. The subject of your post lead me to believe you had something to say, but alas, I was wrong. Seriously, this is one of the silliest posts I have ever seen on this site. Every single line is more ridiculous than the last. I really love your closer: "Let's not confuse journalism with news."
Slandered, abused, harassed or libeled Apple I'd agree with you.
If ThinkSecret published the formula for Coke or specifics about Apple's OSX internals and other trade secrets I'd agree with you.
ThinkSecret published a rumor about Apple's up and coming product lines.
If they'd even reprinted restricted company marketing sheets given to select individuals I'd agree with you, but they published HEARSAY which isn't even admissible as witness testimony (IANAL) in a criminal case!
I think ThinkSecret should have the right to publish corporate gossip and THAT'S Free Speech. If Apple's got a corporate leak that's THEIR problem and there's a myriad of ways to figure it out without infringing upon a basic liberty.
(And I support Apple trying to hunt down their leaks too...)
But another study found different results, based on barking-head analysis: "Scientists measure spin of Bill O'Reilly.
Blogging has pretty well outlived it's usefullness on the whole. There are still some useful blog sites but for the most part they've been taken over by interest groups, for advocacy, and even the corporate world as a form of advertising. Certainly in some respect that's what blogs always were but now it's commercialized, coordinated and professional. I think it will be around as long as the web exists but it's no longer (just) a passionate voice speaking out. It no longer has the meaning it had for an all too brief period.
I would just like evreyone to step back and think for just a moment. Are we saying / fighting this because it would get ThinkSecret out of a jam or because we want to change the way blogs are seen from a guberment perspective.
We should first evaluate the strengths and weaknesses and make sure those support the free speach that we have grown to love.
In short lets not start fighting until we know what we are fighting for.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Journalism is writing about something, be it a journal of your personal hygene habits [or lack thereof] or of Government opression. News is in the eye of the beholder.
Let's not confuse journalism with news.
No dude (or dudette), journaling is what you are talking about. Journalism is something entirely different.
Journalism:
1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.
Blogging is far too broad a term to use with precision. It simply means the act of publishing something -- anything -- on a blog.
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The media has nothing to do with it. It's all about the quality.
It isn't quality, it is behavior. If a Star employee acts and behaves like a reporter, then produces a story, that's journalism (regardless of what you or I might think of the story). If that employee sits at a desk and fabricates an entire story, that's not journalism.
I'm sure the Star's legal staff, or that of any supermarket tabloid, can fill in all the details.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I would think that by default makes Blogs journalism. Granted that G/F is one of the most horrific assualts on our rights as citizens that we have ever seen.
Blogs have their place. It will be up to individual bloggers to earn their credibility. They are starting off a handicap as it is. Popularity and frank discussion of what is written will determine who among them are journalist and hacks.
The big threat is using heavy handed bullshit laws like G/F to stifle even this form of written expression.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
People often ignore how disreputable the news business was for most of its history. In the 18th century, journalism was no more than an adjunct to political parties (such as they were then) and its mission was to spread the party line. In many parts of the world, this is still true. Journalism was big business 100 years later with the assorted hype and fictions that William Randolph Hearst peddled. Later, the life of the guys depicted in 'Front Page' in the 30s was real enough. Reporters were not generally educated and they were not sought after for dinner parties or boring public television shows. What they did for a living was anything but holy. Things got serious during WW II, when everything was serious, and this notion of serious reporting began. It got very serious in Watergate when reporters brought down an unpopular president. Since then, every J-school kid dreams of bringing down a president, and they almost had one in Clinton. But what does it all mean? Newspaper reading keeps going down, down, down. The New York Times has fiction writers on the staff. All that serves to remind us that journalism is not some kind of priesthood, just people who have the cash and time to write down their stray thoughts and shoot their mouths off -- or hire others to do it for them. That, indeed, is what is protected by the Bill of Rights. A.J. Liebling, august critic of journalism, said something like freedom of the press only applies to those who own one. There's the key. Two-hundred years ago, it was tough to typeset and print a few sheets of paper, and then how were you going to distribute them? Think of the expensive hardware a newspaper needs today. Not to mention TV, watching around the clock for every move Michael Jackson makes. But in the last 50 years, TV made mincemeat of newspapers in America. Now the Web. Now anyone with a $500 PC and a telephone is a publisher, and has a potential worldwide audience for anything he or she cares to say. Every bit the journalist as the TV actor who shuffles the paper in front of the camera or the egomaniac who is on a mission to bring down a president, every bit as protected by the Bill of Rights. Most newspapers and TV stations rip 'n read -- that is they go to the two or three wire services and rehash the articles. Why is that different from what happens here? Because once in a while reporters make phone calls or retype press releases? Any blogger, or whatever, who gets on a couple of mailing lists and receives announcements from business and government has everything the New York Times needs to produce its stories. What's hard about the Times's operation is those two big printing plants. So bloggers, all you need is someone who clicks -- so get cracking on figuring out the Google page ranking and get to the top of the list -- a better deal than Ben Franklin ever had.
taken from http://www.thefirstamendment.org/shieldlaw.html 'The Shield Law protects a "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed unpon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service" and a "radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station." The Shield Law also likely applies to stringers, freelancers, and perhaps authors.' do blogs fit that requirement?
you might as well ask 'is typing journalism?'. Some blogs will be journalism, some blogs won't. Journalism is more an activity than a venue for words.
...a learned skill which comes about from being educated in the methods, ethics and practices that go with such a sensitive and vital occupation. I started my blog in 1994 (yup, 11 years ago) and always mentioned in my disclaimer that it was based on my opinions and observations. The patterns us bloggers see in the clouds depend on the viewing angle, while journalists will (should!) spend time viewing the clouds from assorted angles to obtain the truth.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Everyone with an (free) audience is a journalist.
I'm drunk, but I'm right.
is "one who keeps a journal"
One definition of journal is "a chronological log of events or ideas"
A blog is a web log, and many of them are ordered chronologically, and detail events or ideas.
So, basically, what I'm saying here is that you're all a bunch of idiots except me.
Blogging isn't journalism, but todays journalism isn't "JOURNALISM" either.
(or they should be anyway)
I'm making a distinction between an actual trade secret (Coke's recipe, Colonel Sanders 11 secret herbs and spices) and company gossip (Microsoft is working on a new version of Office and a new version of Windows...ooooh hot news!)
Somewhere in there is the quasi legal stuff... (The new Pentiums have a math flaw... Vioxx may increase heart attacks...)
I think a better allegory is if someone tells me that my neighbor is going to build an radio antenna tower on his property for his HAM hobby. Do I have the right to publish that in the housing newsletter?
The real question isn't whether or not a blogger is a journalist, but why journalists are treated as being above the law. The first ammendment was intended to apply to everyone, not just some elite class of journalists. If free speech guarantees a right not to testify at a grand jury, then that right should apply to everyone.
Most blogs however are poorly written, poorly researched and just platforms for people to voice their opinions - definitely not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.
In regards to the Apple/thinksecret case - the blogger wasn't acting as a journalist...you can't violate an NDA and then try to hide behind the shield of being a journalist. He signed the NDA first, then released the information to the public...he may not have been editorializing, but he was violating a contract w/Apple that had to be respected first, even if that infringed on his 1st amendment rights and his desire to be a journalist.
Yeah, it sucks he got nailed - but you can't blame Apple for defending it's NDAs and the gross violation of their trust with the particular employee responsible. You can bet that any company in a similar situation would do exactly the same thing, otherwise the NDAs have no weight and are pointless. Given the current environment with patents and the laws surrounding them, it's important that if someone actually innovates, they be given an opportunity to actually make something of those innovations. In truth, this didn't hurt Apple that much, but they at least need to set the record straight in regards to what they'll tolerate and what they will prosecute - the next time someone pulls something like this, it could be much more costly to them.
As an aside, is Taco trying to figure out what to put on his Resume(journalist??)?? I keed!
Like the recent Vioxx scandal. That was all protected under NDA. There were concerns that Vioxx might increase heart attacks but the initial research was statistically inconclusive and so the results were buried. For several years.
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 it's only a theoretical issue not seen in the wild and Microsoft's going to patch it in the next service pack release... Is it a violation of NDA to leak that info?
Like someone else on here posted. How do you know you have a protected violation of the NDA until after you've violated the NDA and other people have decided that for you? (and maybe not in your favor)
Religion didn't or wouldn't recognize the value of nonreligious books when they started out.
Book publishers didn't or wouldn't recognize the value of newspapers when they started out.
Newspapers didn't or wouldn't recognize the value of broadcast radio when it started out.
Broadcast radio didn't or wouldn't recognize the value of television when it started out.
Did you expect something different when it came to blogging?
So long as the message conveyed is independent of it's subject material IMO it's journalism. Which would you consider to have more "journalistic integrity": slashdot or newsmaxx?
Blogging is here to stay and news syndicates, in their current form, will be dead in a twenty or so years. Some people just can't handle change. TFB.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Britney Spears changes clothes, sometimes several times during a concert. This is a fact. No doubt she gets naked in the process, so we can safely reguard it as fact that Ms. Spears gets naked from time to time. Does that mean that Juggs magazine can get away with getting photos of this state of nakedness from some unnamed source and printing the pictures, in the name of facts? And refusing to name the source under pretenses of journalistic integrity? I don't think so.
Think Secret is doing the technical equivilant of publishing nude photos of celebrities. Was the public served in any way shape or form by Think Secret? Not in the slightest. Merely "publishing" facts does not make you a journalist.
Blogging is as much journalism as lap dancing is freedom of speech.
Journalism can be expressed in any media. It is not the medium that matters, it is the technique and integrity. See Marshall McLuhan.
A: No.
It's the delusion that the world is remotely interested in what you had for breakfast this morning.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending
s. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." --H. L. Mencken
At the risk of angering everyone on Slashdot, many of whom are probably bloggers...
Has anyone else run into the problem of blog entries largely killing your ability to find useful information on particular topics? I've had a couple experiences recently where I was trying to find specific info via Google; but it seemed like the first 100 or so results were worthless blog rants.
#DeleteChrome
I wouldn't call a constant stream of sensationalized, celebrity-driven 'info-tainment' journalism. It's only meant to pull in the maximum number of eyeballs to push advertising and increase advertising revenues and ratings. It's all about business...Jon Stewart's vexations about "Hurting America" be damned! Oh look! It's Keith Obermann reading from a teleprompter...a bunch of funny words someone else wrote for him while he tries to mimick Letterman's schtick! Ho Ho...Ha Ha! He's funny.
...and now a word from our sponsor.
On the other hand, many blogs are just biased blatherings on whatever the "mainstream" media is reporting. So, in a sense, the bloggers are parasitic.
Actually, come to think of it, journalism is nowhere to be found.
NO
Whether the source is under an NDA or not is meaningless--if that source wants to break it of his own free will, that's his business. If the paper is under an NDA (a very rare occurrence, although they might hold a story to satisfy a source) then they can't publish.
How do you think the Philip Morris/cigarettes are addictive stories broke?
No less and no more than say, glossy magazines are.
I don't think that the medium defines whether or not it is journalism (or art or whatever)... it's the content, and the creator's intent, and ultimately the interpretation of that content that defines this.
wbs.
Huh?
I see a lot of folks arguing about the definition of journalism, and whether or not writing a blog qualifies. Well, my dictionary says that journalism is:
"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.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I've sometimes Googled for a phrase in an attempt to find its origin. About two years ago the "world's best golfer is Black, world's most popular rapper is White, the Germans don't want to go to war..." thing was hugely popular. It showed up in thousands of blogs, though going by date I was able to find out who said the original (Charles Barkley), exactly what the original was, and when some of the newer things were added to it. It's bad enough people just dump stuff with the intro "I just read this today, wow!" into their blogs, but what's worse is these quotes rarely include attributions.
Tag lost or not installed.
The preservation of freedom of the press requires a very open view of what is considered "the press". To define it too narrowly opens the door to a tremendous loss of freedoms that the constitution is designed to protect.
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 - in order to remove protections from those it declares "non-press" - is a very slippery slope.
Amount of research going into a story is immaterial. (Can you imagine this judge claiming CBS' _60 Minutes_ is not "Press" because of its inadequate research on some of their stories?) Besides: By this measure MacInTouch would qualify as Press.
The distribution medium is immaterial. (Can you imagine this judge declaring CBS News - TV, Radio, or their web site - is not "Press" because it's not printed on paper?)
Even if you use some measure of whether they're reporting news MacInTouch is pretty clearly "Press". They're publicly reporting new information of interest to a broad readership of more-or-less ordinary people, many of whom are using it to make consumer decisions about their next computer purchase. (Can you imagine this judge declaring, say, the Detroit Free Press to not be "Press" if it reports leaked information about GM's next model year cars?)
IMHO the judge erred, and I suspect (and hope) that he will be reversed on appeal - if he doesn't change his mind before that.
I can see how he might be trying to head off a situation where every cracker, corporate espionage operator, and extortionist puts up a web site in order to claim protection under the journalist shield laws. But IMHO such things should be easy to distinguish. Current shield laws don't protect the mainstream press in such a situation. So there's no need to declare a blog to be non-press to avoid the problem.
This thing should be decided solely on the same criteria that would be used if MacInTouch was a print journal.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
In Bush Chimpler's AmeriKKKa?
Yes it definitely is ALL the time.
Bloggers input is commensurate to their political / personal involvement. Aside from propagandists, why would anyone spiel on the Web for no reason?
No ifs, ands or buts. Blogging is individuals staying at the forefront of *.gov reform. Anything else is BULLSHIT because that's the def. of a spoken and written revolution.
Peace
Looking here, these two definitions appear to conflict badly: ... 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 public interest
2
It appears that to be a successful journalist, one must carefully straddle the line between these two meanings.
Bloggers may well fit definition c., though admittedly most blogs are not well 'designed.'
I have this blogservation:
Ben's Rule of Bloggers: Everyone will make someone else famous for 15 minutes.
And finally, my off-the-cuff definition:
Journalism: The promotion of and belief in the inherent goodness of Journal Bearings
Tag lost or not installed.
American Journalism Review had a great article last month about the assault on shield laws.
I realize that shield laws and ThinkSecret's NDA smackdown aren't quite the same thing, but the AJR article is great.
Figured I'd plug it.
The medium is not the message, except in the case of blogs. Don't you read any? 90% of them are about how much better blogs and blogging are than print or televised sources of information, the immanent demise of (Old|Big|Mainstream|Corporate) Media, and the possibilities for blogs to revolutionize communications (without, of course, actually doing anything to further these goals).
Naturally, the other 10% of blogs are even more stupid and self-absorbed: who's dating who; who likes what food, clothes company, movies, or computers; buzzword-laden business strategies of the week; complaints about said business strategies; etc.
Anyone remember The Simspons episode where Lisa gets the family to buy a computer and they get it hooked up to the Internet and Homer creates the "Mr. X" homepage?
Blogging reminds me an awful lot like that, just they're much easier to get started than creating a simple HTML webpage since sites like Blogspot and Livejournal do all the work for you.
Sign up for an account, fill out a text field with the text you want to put up there, and voila! Instant webpage.
Simpsons nailed this years before blogging became popular. If someone can get their blog to be considered seriously by the rest of the world as news, more power to them. Just remember the lesson at the end of the Simpsons episode: Just cause someone says it's news, doesn't make it news.
Insert Sig Here
The problem with art is that anyone can claim to be an artist. There is no certifying body.
Original journalism was based around the person's ability to get into favor with those who owned the medium, the machines capable of printing.
Now with that barrier removed, we need some new way to discriminate and filter. Proximity to the source matters the MOST (everyone has an opinion, not everyone is a witness.)Popularity often makes someone's quality self-evident, in other cases, it does not (Drudge.)
My problem with blogs is that in most cases, it's second, third, or even fourth hand information and opinion being regurgitated. In fact, in my mind, the word "blog" is synonymous with "bored punter who has more opinions than contacts, who wants to be recognized in a field he/she never bothered to pursue through regular correct channels."
The only word more stigmatic is "journal"
BARF
Journals SUCK
You are a journalist worthy of legal protection if, and only if, you meet one of the following criteria:
1) you are employed by a wealthy media emprie and your writing/published opinion is in line with the goals of that organization (note this is not necessairly bad, if said organization's goal is absolute truth, but name me one American corporation who's interested, even slightly, in absolute truth).
2) you are indepently wealthy and have no particular desire to stay that way (in the intersted of liberty, truth, justice and all that jive).
*EVERYONE*ELSE*is nothing more than meat for the judicial industrial complex.
The amount of reasonability of ones action in a court of law is directly proportional to the ratio of your lawyer charging you over the amount your opponent's lawyer charging your opponent.
For a blog to be considered as an entity like the NY Times, a good indicator of how worthy they might be would be to see if blogs had a press pass to certain events. If they don't, they're not professional journalists, and they get no protection. If a blogger CAN get a press pass to some event, then chances are pretty good that they have the professional standing to avoid messes like these.
Also, legitimate journalistic entities tend to have some kind of oversight to see that a story is reported correctly.
A final note: your vaildity as a journalist depends on how much other entities respect you as a journalist. (Read: Journalist status is relative to your credibility with existing journalists)
Blogging is not journalism. Journalism reports the facts in an objective manner. I haven't seen one blog that does this. Of course by that definition most "news" services could not be called journalism. It's ironic but the best news services we have in australia aren't the commercial ones, but the ones owned and run by the government.
Yet another blogger begging for an audience.
Blogging is simply an online journal, but it is far from Journalism. Journalism requires background information, fact checking, dissemination of information - general reporting. A blog can be a poem, random though, minutes from a meeting - a disorganized paragraph or two stating nothing other than the writer's "Stream of Conciousness" ramblings.
Therefore, simply, WEBLOGGING (I hate the term blogging, which is a bastardization of WEB-Logging) is not and never was intended to be journalism.
BROOKLYN>
test
NO IT ISN'T. Anyone can write an editorial, but it takes a respected organization and a proven track record of ethics to be considered trusted journalism. Sorry, Livejournal, Xanga, NBC, etc.. You're not journalists.
If the NYT can do such a good job of covering its butt source wise, why can't CBS news?
On the other hand it took a handful of bloggers all of a few hours to detect a series of forgeries that CBS tried to pass off as legit.
Just because someone isn't getting paid by some big media conglomerate doesn't mean they can't be a journalist. Likewise even big media conglomerates are capable of the worst sort of journalistic corruption and incompetence.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
All I hear from them nowadays are whines and wimpers.
journalism Audio pronunciation of "journalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jûrn-lzm)
.
.
n.
1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.
well acording to this , it both is and is not "6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal." under that deffinition it most certainlz would be , however i reallz disagree with that one , and im not sure but i belive it isnt in the cambridge or oxford dictionarys
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation...... That would rule out 99.9% of blogs and i feel it is how i see journalism as compared to editorialism "which most blogs seem to be"
However since the deffinition apears to be rather confused
I do not know if this can be awnserd
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Seriously, it doesn't matter whether they're a journalist or not, its their conduct that matters. From what I've read, Think Secret actively recruited Apple employees willing to violate their NDA's. If it were for something other than the upcoming products, such as dumping, or abusing employees, then I'd say that what they did was proper, but for this? Its quite possible they've hurt Apple by doing this and considering Apple's small slice of the market, every ding they take is a coffin nail, so TS has nothing to be proud of, nor any way to justify their actions.
Mod parent up, +1 Funny.
"For purposes of legal defense, Star, Sun, the Weekly World News and so forth have their journalistic licenses."
HAHAHAHAHA!!! "journalistic licenses". HAHAHAHA!!!
Oh, wait, you were serious, weren't you? That's just sad. And such a relatively low UID, too.
Ya'll are awfully naive if you think these "journalist" bloggers aren't paid. Gawker Media pays their bloggers. Quite a few "bloggers" are really shills for a political interest group. These writers, though, are not truly bloggers. Just because the mainstream media calls someone who writes a paid editorial on a daily basis a "blogger" doesn't make it so.
More people are using the Internet every day, http://www.axcessnews.com/national_0307051.shtml http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=139 0 the ability it offers for the verification of material via corroborative website analysis, email correspondence and bulletin board communications is an amazing development for humanity.
Journalism like so much else has to move with the times, and currently these times are travelling at the speed of light through fibre optics of the Internet backbone!
No
Well, in more traditional media forms this person is called the "editor". You could say he is the one who gets to mod stories up or down, send them back to be rewritten and toss out the garbage before it gets published.
Some (but not all) blogs have editors. Slashdot has its editors as a front gate (simple accept/deny), as well as moderators to police the comments (and metamoderators to police the moderators). Atrios' Eshaton has no such editor, and even the comments are rarely policed.
I guess the biggest problem is that before the internet, the const of entry (printing press, broadcast studio) was high enough to ensure that a certain level of professionalism was present--otherwise the audience would refuse to pay/read/watch, and that high investment becomes a millstone. Websites don't have that finaicial risk, meaning less incentive to be professional.
Well I guess that The mac rumor sites fall under #6, don't you?
Looks like that definition is also a bit out of date, very 20th century. Certainly there are quite a few ways of "publishing" on the internet. And blogging would fall under several of those items in spirit.
If it's professional set up and down with peer review then yes. But if some 10 year old kid decides to put a blog on the internet about the war in iraq then now it's a discussion.
http://www.npcgaming.com Dedicated Gaming Servers
Is blogging journalism?
/. allowed to be 'clear carrier' (what is the term?) sites, where they are 100% unedited - thus are just providing a forum of communication, like a telcom.
If all blogs are journals and all blogging is journalism, then any blog is a journal and some journals are blogs. poppycock.
The worst thing is DEFINE A 'BLOG
[inserting insightful bit here] What you have to say is, not is blogging journalism, that is a VERY (yes bold and caps) narrow view of the problem, what we need to ask is, are peoples views, opinions, assertions, quips, IM's, emails, leaked documents, etc. etc. protected by any laws. Take fuckmicrosoft.com, it'd be a damn shame if the content of that wasn't protected.
Also, The idea of a 'trade secret'. Who defined what was a secret, and it isn't a secret when it is leaked. I think the notion of throwing the legal system at someone to make them rat on someone else is flawed.
Someone screwed you over, and told a secret, deal with it. It could have been conjecture. It is like plagiarism. If I get 1 million monkeys to write longhorn (I would have to head hunt them from thier current position... which is at redmond!) is that protected? copied?
This whole article looks different if you replace 'blog' with 'webpage'.
The word blog clouds and distorts the real question - blogging is a technology, and an ill defined one at that. Is a forum a blog?
I think the clearer question is are sites like
So once again, I ask, define blogging.
You cannot, you see. Is a blog something with *blog* in the url? is a blog a technology? is my task applciation a blog? I can easily add new 'posts' to it by adding tasks...
What is a blog, and what is a normal website? This is the problem you get by sticking naems to things, and then bending and misusing them.
The whole web has become a 'blog' because the simplest lowest common denominator for simple posting is currently marketted under the buzzword 'blog'.
Which I hate.
Blog software in general is very convoluted, all these really narky features that I will never (And don't want to) understand. I hate how they are overly-flirtatious with google.
OK enough with blog bashing. Ill pad the top of the comment with something insightful.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com