Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Not Journalists, Federal Judge Rules
New submitter squideatingdough writes "On InfoWorld, Robert X. Cringely covers a recent case of a blogger accused of libel and defamation. The federal judge ruled that journalists warrant more protection from libel suits than bloggers, but it is obvious from the article that bloggers' rights can vary by state, depending on the 'shield laws' in force." Reader blindseer adds a link to this AP article on the case,
and asks "If the government can define who is part of the press, and therefore gets First Amendment protections, then where does that place the freedom of the press?" The slippery slope is a steep one; even some relatively open societies require licensure for journalists (visiting ones included) with predictable results. (And the Labour Party would like to see a similar system in the UK.)
Allowing a government determine who is and is not the press is allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop.
Journalists don't have more rights than anyone else. Freedom of the press means that all people are allowed to publish their opinions. Thomas Paine was a blogger, not a journalist.
Hell, Journalists aren't reporters these days.
Reporters aren't reporters.
They just regurgitate corporate press releases without any critical analysis. Since it no longer pays to report in the public interest, we're left with PR whores chasing $$$, opponents with an axe to grind and obsessed amateur sleuths on the web.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The headline is "bloggers are not journalists", but there is a bit more to the case.
Mrs. Cox wrote stuff in her blog that would be clearly libel if untrue, and clearly something someone wouldn't want people to hear if it was true. So she is in court for libel, and the defence against libel would be that she wrote the truth.
Now she says that what she wrote is based on information from a source which she wants to protect. If someone tried to sue the unknown source for libel, then shield laws would protect or not protect that person, and whether she is a journalist or a blogger would make a difference. But it isn't the source who is sued, it is Mrs. Cox herself. And to defend herself, she would need to have evidence that she wrote the truth. If her only evidence is a witness who doesn't want to come forward, and whom she doesn't want to present to the court, then she has no evidence that the statements she wrote are true.
Where shield laws would make a difference: If an employee gives a blogger or a journalist evidence that a company does something wrong. The blogger or journalist now _has_ the evidence. The company wants to take revenge and fire the employee. But here the situation is different; she can protect her witness all she wants, but if she does, she will go down for libel.
That rules out most professional journalists.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Likewise, if you think "your" means "you are", you're probably not a real journalist.
The decision does raise an interesting question, though - what makes you a journalist?
It's the wrong question to ask. The right question is to consider each publication individually and ask whether it was journalistic. Someone's history or credentials should have no bearing on how they're protected by law. What should determine whether the law protects you is whether you follow journalistic standards in the publication of the story or article. Do you confirm the facts you present? Are you upfront about any bias you might have, including advertising revenue you receive? Even stuff as simple as whether your articles are checked for spelling and grammar mistakes. But the important part is that the standard is applied to work rather than to people. It shouldn't matter if someone has written Pulitzer-level work in the past...if they take shortcuts and don't adhere to a Journalistic standard, they shouldn't receive protection for that work. Likewise, if someone with a history of shoddy work produces something that meets the criteria, that work should be protected.
Asking what makes you a journalist is akin to making an ad hominem argument. Being a journalist is reflected in your work, so you need only examine the work to determine when someone is a journalist.
Obama is an antichrist muslim terrorist. He lied, cheated, and stole in order to get elected. He did so purposely to steal money and use his power to help himself and his friends get ahead at the expense of the common guy. He's an asshole, a racist, and a hatemonger.
You know, if you're just going to copy from fox news, you could at the very least cite them.