Over the past weeks, we've discussed the rights of people
in regards to published material. Under the first amendment, free speech exists
as an inalienable right. Distinctions are made however, between the press and
the general populous. The question arises then around the idea of who is the
press? Traditionally, and most likely the original purpose of the framers,
freedom of the press applies to those forms of mass media: Print, and later
radio, television. Recently though, the Internet and social media have become a
place of conception for vast amounts of news. The term journalist has been
re-evaluated and now the question must be asked, are bloggers journalists?
One landmark case that
attempts to make some distinction between traditional journalism and blogging
is that of Obsidian
Financial Group v. Cox, which dealt with possible defamation of Obsidian
Financial Group by a self-described blogger, Crystal Cox1. In the
trial, Cox (representing herself) stated she received her information from an
anonymous source, and cited Oregon Shield law, designed to protect legitimate
journalists2. District Judge Marco Hernandez however, ruled in favor
of the firm, awarding $2.5 million in damages1, stating that Cox was
simply a blogger, and did not qualify as a journalist in the eyes of the court.
He provided seven requirements as to what qualifies someone as a recognized
journalist:
2. Credentials or proof of
affiliation with a recognized news entity
3. Proof of adherence to
journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or
disclosures of conflicts of interest
4. Keeping notes of
conversations and interviews conducted
5. Mutual understanding or
agreement of confidentiality between the defendant
and his/her sources
6. Creation of an independent
product rather than assembling writings and
postings of others
7. Contacting “the other side”
to get both sides of a story3
In another case, the
California based website Technobuffalo was sued by cellphone giant Motorola
over releasing pictures photos of new cellphone manuals before they had been
released. Cook County Circuit Judge Michael Panter also ruled
that the website could not be defined as a “news medium”, and therefore would
not be protected under Illinois
Reporter's Shield Law4. In the case, the definitions of journalist
and journalism came under scrutiny. Judge Panter spoke on the matter, saying
that, “This is a fast-evolving issue facing courts everywhere”4.
Given
the vast increases in technology, and the number of people with access to large
audiences, the fundamental nature of journalism is evolving. As seen in a
number of cases nationwide however, those sources of news not strictly
affiliated with traditional media and journalism are not protected under state
Shield Laws. So what do you think? Should bloggers be considered the same as
accredited journalists? Should these Shield Laws be expanded, or phrased more ambiguously
in order to extend protections to all published media?
Sources
1. "Obsidian
Finance Group v. Cox." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/obsidian-finance-group-v-cox>.
2. "In
$2.5 Million Judgment, Court Finds Blogger Is Not a Journalist." Media
Decoder Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/in-2-5-million-judgment-court-finds-blogger-is-not-a-journalist/>.
3. Coursey,
David. "You Be The Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists?" Forbes.
Forbes Magazine, 02 Jan. 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/01/02/you-be-the-judge-are-bloggers-journalists/>.
4. Meincke,
Paul. "Are Bloggers Journalists? Judge Rules 'no' in TechnoBuffalo
Case."WLS Chicago News. ABC, 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.
<http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8504519>.
To be quite honest, I am rather divided on this subject. On the one hand, I do not agree that bloggers are the same as accredited journalists for the same basic reasons cited in the Obsidian case, i.e. lack of schooling, fact checking requirements, etc. However, bloggers do perform important tasks in society. Being free to post what they wish, as they are not beholden to the interests of publishers and special interests, often bloggers are more able to write stories which represent realities which may be otherwise blurred by special interests. As far as whistleblowers are concerned, bloggers tend to be those most able to uncover hidden facts and truths. In that sense, I do think that Shield laws should be expanded in order to protects blogger interests and sources. Yet at the same time, I am still weary of expanding such protections on an overly-broad basis. Perhaps distributing Shield rights and liberties on a case-by-case basis depending on the degree to which a specific blogger adhered to the parameters of journalism as described in the Obsidian case would be an adequate way of assessing the degree to which bloggers may enjoy the same protections as the established press?
ReplyDeleteI really like and agree with Kateira's thoughts in this area of question regarding the issue Jack has put before us. There need's to be a middle ground as technology progresses and advances, with now additional sources of news expanding outside of the traditional news source. Going back in time, my understanding was that a major purpose for protection of the press was because of the fear with which colonialist's had published their pamphlets and federalist paper type of documents. To not protect bloggers i feel defeats the spirit of the law, that of promoting and protecting all opinions in the press...especially the authentic and real stories....which typical news sources are often unable to do for several reasons. Multiple major news castors have been frank lately in educating the public that much of what we hear as news is governmentally censored even here in America. Bloggers are not subject to these same criteria and can freely report. However, i do realize there are multiple Bloggers who do not adhear to appropriate reporting standards. All things considered, i would lean to side with providing complete protection to all forms of media, including Bloggers, to prohibit governmental hindrance of "undesired blogging materials" ....and then let the judicial process prosecute any inappropriate reporting practices.
ReplyDeleteI do think that bloggers who want to call themselves journalists need to adhere to certain requirements, such as fact checking and disclosure of interests. Just because someone has a million followers does not make them a journalist. But I also agree that Shield Laws should be expanded so that the bloggers out there who do adhere to the journalistic requirements can enjoy the same freedoms as journalists for the printed press. It seems that nearly every law concerning the press or media needs to be reevaluated in light of the internet and changes it has brought to our country. And this should be done sooner rather than later, as technology continues to evolve.
ReplyDeleteIf a blogger wants be considered a journalist then they should follow the same requirements that other journalists have to follow. If they are just posting things without checking their facts then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves journalists and consequently be protected by the Shield Laws. Bloggers often have more freedom to write on certain topics because they aren't constrained by a certain publisher. This allows them to write about certain topics that other news media companies wouldn't normally cover. This provides valuable incite into certain issues that wouldn't normally be available to the public. Bloggers provide valuable information to the general public but if they aren't held to a certain standard then I don't think they should be protected by the Shield Laws.
ReplyDeleteNot all bloggers are journalists, but some are. I think the central problem is defining what a journalist is and is not. Is a journalist someone who simply reports information and stories? That would be a very broad definition, under which virtually everyone could receive shield protections. I don’t agree with this broad definition of journalism being used to determine shield protection, nor do I agree with judge Hernandez’s definition. Requiring a degree in journalism is ridiculous considering that there are many skilled journalists with differing educational backgrounds. Furthermore, an educational distinction doesn’t mean that someone is actually good at what they do.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that the legal definition of journalism be constructed in terms of exactly who we want the shield laws to protect. Certainly they weren’t meant to protect bloggers who publish libelous material under the pretense that they consider themselves journalists. Were they meant to protect those who are affiliated with a legally established organization licensed to be involved in journalism? Perhaps when the shield laws were created they didn’t see a need to define journalism because there was much less variation in the profession. Clearly that is no longer the case.
I don’t think all bloggers should be protected by shield laws, but I do think that some should. Social Media has broadened the context in which journalism exists. I think “journalist” needs to be defined to include bloggers that truly are journalists, and exclude those who are not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe term "journalist" needs to be redefined. Both journalists and bloggers contribute a great deal to society, but the distinction between the two needs to be made. The Shield Laws are great for protecting journalists, although maybe there should be more continuity between states? I think that in order for a blogger to be protected under the Shield Laws they need to meet criteria distinguishing them as a "journalist." I wouldn't consider a blogger an "accredited journalist" because they have no formal training and no established standards. But at this point it seems like everything is just a play on words and until journalism is redefined the courts are going to have a hard time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the rulings and standards for journalism above. I don't believe that simply forwarding information counts as true journalism. Bloggers can be anyone with access to the internet, and because of that, the content on many blogs is unbridled, unedited, and one dimensional. Not all bloggers are edjucated enough to determine what is acceptable to publish and what is not and most bloggers don't conduct non-internet reasearch on potential articles, leading to unrefined and inaccurate information. I wouldn't call that journalism. I do believe that internet journalism exists, but broadening that definition to include all bloggers only allows for more internet gossip and libel by unwitting posters.
ReplyDeleteThis seems pretty simple to me - basically - if you get paid to do it, then it's your job.
ReplyDeleteIf you are paid to be a journalist, then it's likely that you are in fact, a journalist.
If you are writing up stories on the net in your spare time then chances are that you are not a journalist.
If you have been hired by a company or organization to do mandated posts of a professional nature, then you are probably a journalist.
If you are really good at writing up stories on the net in your spare time then a company or organization could take notice of you and give you a job, and then you would be a journalist.
I agree with most posts that a middle ground should be found for the protection of bloggers as journalists. While many blogs may very well not qualify as real, respectable journalism, there are probably bloggers that would adhere to high journalistic standards as well. I also feel that some of the requirements listed in the decision above may not be necessary and actually work towards silencing many valid opinions and journalistic work- such as the requirement of affiliation with a recognized news entity. The medium of news seems to be quickly changing with social media, and I think the law should make some room for the protection of some of these non-traditional forms.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion bloggers should not be considered journalists. Technology has allowed the common person to be a many things. Whether it allows us to be a great cook with instructional videos or a better tennis player by the same means, technology has opened up a lot of possibilities. The ability to blog information is a big part of this. However, there is one large distinction that separates bloggers from journalists. This is the level of professionalism and distinction associated with journalism. Any teenager with access to a computer can be a blogger, but to be a journalist one has to go through education and be less opinionated (write about both sides of the story, which blogging can be completely void of). Another distinction is the element of truth. Journalism tends to have a more truthful basis since it is held to stricter standards than blogging. As some classmates above, I agree the definition of journalism needs to be changed to include the medium of today, but not so encompassing that it becomes flooded with so called "news" bloggers.
ReplyDeleteI personally have written for two papers, I worked for the Chrony in a "journalist" role and for the Intermountain Catholic as a "citizen journalist" role. Just throwing out my biases out there. I agree California judge that this is a difficult situation. That being said I see huge differences between journalists and bloggers and citizen journalists. Journalists should have full protection, the way I see it citizen journalists are not really journalists, it's more of an opinion piece. If a news source wants a citizen journalists take on a news item then one of their JOURNALISTS can interview them. Journalists are held to certain standards (SPJ Code of Ethics) that the common man is not. However the blogger presents an unusual issue. I feel that it is a complete gray area. The "requirements" that were listed in the post seem ridiculous to me. at the end of the day I tend to agree with some people above. Is the blogger a professional? What is their following? Do they make money from this? Would they put their position as a blogger on a job application? These questions for me can really more accurately determine whether they are given the rights of a journalist or a citizen. Like we've learned everything is circumstantial.
ReplyDeleteLike previous commentators, I think that a journalist could be a blogger, but a blogger isn't always a journalist. There should be a clear definition of what a journalist is. I like the definition provided by the court in the Obsidian Financial Group v. Cox case, but I wonder if it is necessary to be affiliated or working for a news organization in order to be called a journalist. What would the harm be if everyone could be a journalist, as long as they held "journalistic" standards?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe on the distinction of a blogger and a journalist based on the fact that bloggers are very opinionated. They do not have to remain neutral like many journalists. Because of this, they can post absolutely anything and not get it reviewed like journalists. This makes them very different and I therefore also do not think bloggers are considered journalists. I understand if they adhere to the standards of journalists then they could be considered a journalist. Could they be some sort of national application for a blogger to get approved to be considered a journalist? If they can show they adhere to proper standards, I think they should get rewarded with shield laws. The criteria for a blogger to be considered a journalist would have to be strict and specific because, like others have said, we would not want bloggers to be getting away with libelous posts.
ReplyDelete