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.
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
Blogging is editorializing.
Blogging is just a medium through which to deliver content. Like any kind of writing, it can be good, or it can be crap.
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
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
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!
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.
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
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.
Cable news "personalities" calling themselves journalists is, more often than not, like someone watching a meteor shower calling themself an astronomer. TV is like a machine that sucks any objectivity and factual evidence out of news and replaces it with inflammatory propaganda, fear mongering, and flashy graphics. Not that some blogs don't have the same problems, but if cable news is the standard to beat there are definitely bloggers that qualify as journalists.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
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.
Qualitative measures are used all of the time. Simply because a line is gray doesn't mean we do not try to apply a certain amount of common sense to the situation. Take for example "Good Samaritan" laws that protect me if I choose to give CPR to a dying person. If I crack a rib, that law protects me. Even if I do a crappy job of it. Now lets say i decide to jump up and down on the man's chest to try to start the heart. Well, the law no longer protects me as my actions were no longer 'reasonable'. Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Hard to say. But the ideas of 'reasonable' and 'prudent' are all throughout our law. They have to be. So, we do have to make some distinction between who is a journalist and who is not. My one-entry blog certainly does not merit journalistic status. A regular Business Week columnist does. Somewhere in-between? Let the law figure it out.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
No, lots and lots and lots of stuff in the New York Times is not important to me. Most of it isn't. I don't care what's new in the Arts world. I don't read the Business section, etc, etc. But I bet the reports who write the articles for those bits did their research and make sure that what they are publishing is correct as far as they can tell from their research. That's what makes it journalism. The professionalism. Not whether I find that bit important or not.
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.
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.
Nice example, but, unfortunately, wrong:
The NDA is simply a contract. In order for a contract to be valid, the object of the contract must be lawfull. In this case, the object of the contract would be to cover-up an unlawfull act (use of slave labor) thus the contract (the NDA) would be void, and karmaflux could not, then, be in violation of the NDA.
Perhaps there are some "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" , the number of cases where I've been able to check personally is pretty small. But in NONE of the case where I've been able to check has a newpaper or TV station even TRIED to do a decent job of objective reporting. Everything is processed for entertainment value, usually, but not entirely, by selection to such an extent that the original occurance is only recognizable if you know and witnessed what actually happened. And then it can be difficult.
I saw a city go up in flames. Then the next day I drove over there and found that a couple of blocks had been destroyed. I saw a city go up in flames. Then a week later I returned and saw acre on acre of devastation (with pockets untouched, appearantly arbitrarily).
From the news I couldn't tell which occurance was more drastic. They always attempt for maximal impact, with the result that one can't have any sense of porportion. Equally, if they decide not to cover something, it doesn't matter how large it is, it's just ignored.
I trust bloggers MORE than I trust journalists. They don't hide their biases as much, and they don't have a professional interest in distorting everything for maximal entertainment value. And they express a true variety of viewpoints. (The US press is over 90% owned by 7 corporations [perhaps 5...I don't keep track, and there are mergers]. People working in corporations don't say anything publically that they believe will upset their bosses, or allow their subordinates to do so.)
People deride Slashdot, but I trust it more as a source of news than I do the local papers. It's true that it doesn't cover a wide variety of topics, and it's true that there are trolls and astroturfers. But there's lots of other people, too, and things that people want to say aren't censored (except in ways peculiar to Slashdot, and which don't reflect the biases of the external world).
Blogs partake of the essence of Slashdot. (Well, the popular ones do.) If one person lies, someone else will contradict them. The ensuing discussion will probably reveal who is lying, or provide things I can check. Usually it turns out that the people just consider different things important, and they're arguing about their tastes. And *that's* important to find out also.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.