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."
Caveat: ThinkSecret is not a blog.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
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
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.
But I as the blogger don't have any responsability to protect your NDA. Assuming I didn't do anything illegal to get the information. The punishment would be for the source, not for the paper, most likely. Since as I understand it they are only being forced to reveal a confidenial source or get punished for refusing to do so.
Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
This is a CA case and there is a CA shield law that gives reporters the right to shield their sources. There have been bills introduced to create a federal shield law, but they have not passed.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
That study did not take into account "editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor," which is where some slant in the media comes from. They also came to the conclusion that the Drudge Report "is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample". I think the methodology of that report should be takin with a grain of salt. I'm just sayin'...
The reason why some states give journalists the right to shield their confidential sources is to encourage whistle-blowing and reporting about government abuses, fraud, etc. Though even on that ground, the courts aren't always willing to accept it (see the Plame/Novak case).
Then why can't individuals be given the right to shield confidential sources in cases where the information is of a whistle-blowing nature, about government abuses, fraud, etc.? The Thinksecret case aside, if you're in a position to publicly disseminate information (as a blog-writer is) then why shouldn't you enjoy the same protections a journalist does? Merely on the grounds of who signs your pay-checks?
The UCLA/Stanford study was very well done, and measured "bias" as the frequency with which left wing vs right wing sources (such as think tanks) were cited. It was a very objective way to measure bias, if not necessarily what is commonly meant.
Fox news was right of center, but not too far. The PBS News Hour was the most balanced. ABC and NBC were left of center, but not too far. CBS was pretty far to the left.
Fox News is very comercially sucessful because it is the only TV news outlet with a right wing bias. Market research found that a *majority* of Americans thought the existing news at the time had a bias to the left, so creating a station with some bias to the right was an excellent marketing decision: provide what the majority of viewers want to see, and be the only outlet doing so.
That doesn't, by itself, mean the reporting on Fox News is any better or worse than ABC or NBC, or any more biased, just well targeted to the largest demographic in its direction of bias. Personally, I think all the 24-hour news chanels are terrible, as there's usually a lot less news than they have hours to fill, so you get mostly low-quality filler.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
NDAs have been upheld by the courts. Look for the case of Elizabeth Coady, who signed a lifetime NDA when she signed on to work for Harpo, Inc, the company that Oprah Winfrey uses to run her show. She lost both at the trial and appellate levels on that count, and chose not to press on to the Supreme Court, so the verdict and opinion stand as precedent.
Yes, you can sign away your First Amendment rights in certain cases, and yes, NDAs are generally valid.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Journalists are given a wide latitude to speak, because they help keep our governmental processes open to public inspection, which is one of the policies behind having the First Amendment at all. Sometime when you have fifteen minutes to kill, read Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976). For a contrasting viewpoint severely limiting freedom of speech, read Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), which specifically references Nebraska Press and says why it shouldn't apply to lawyers (skip to Rehnquist's opinion, part II).
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
I run CircusNews.com. CircusNews.com runs on PHP-Nuke, aka blogging software.
Is my website a blog or a news service?
I like to think so. CircusNews.com is currently the most widely read news publication in the circus industry. Big Apple, Ringlings, Cirque and everyone else in the industry gladly issues us press passes when ever we ask. State and (in at least one major case) federal agencies have relied on our research and news reports over the years, not to mention the 50,000 readers we see a month. We are looking at licening AP content, and perhaps joining the AP.
So if we are not a news service, can ANYONE explain to me why not?