dagblog - Comments for "Just because I call myself a Journo doesn't mean I are one"

Jay Rosen's definition is a

acanuck — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 02:41:06 +0000

Jay Rosen's definition is a good one. I like Shearer's anecdote about the NPR reporter getting him booted from the O.J. Simpson trial, but that may be more a case of wanting his seat than really looking down at bloggers. Print journalists especially realize that the internet is killing their industry, beating newspapers on price, variety of viewpoints and -- crucially -- timeliness. News that's more than 24 hours old is ancient history.

Bloggers have played a big role in democratizing access to information. But because so many have no training, they've diluted the standards that print media once upheld. Cash-strapped papers have in turn cut back on editing and proofreading, letting even the basics slip -- things like grammar, spelling and punctuation. So there has been a downside. But on the whole, enabling more people to share a wider range of information has to be a net benefit for society.

Good points, acanuck.

Ramona — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:17:24 +0000

In reply to I'm a journalist, Ramona, and

Good points, acanuck. Thanks. I still think the word "journalist" has distinct connotations and needs a category of its own.

I found this piece by Harry Shearer called "Who IS a Journalist?". He wrote it in 2005. See what you think. (Okay, I had to laugh but it didn't help my confusion any.)

And this piece by Jay Rosen about "Citizen Journalism". (Still chewing on it but I'll pass it along. Good comments, too.)

His definition: "When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another, that’s citizen journalism."

Everything changed with the advent of blogger templates, making it easy for anyone at all to set up a page that looks like an online periodical and create the impression that a journalist is in charge.

But you're right, acanuck. Whatever the title, the rules and consequences should be the same.

I'm a journalist, Ramona, and

acanuck — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 06:26:48 +0000

In reply to As I was reading all of this,

I'm a journalist, Ramona, and I disagree. There doesn't have to be a distinction in law between a professional journalist and an amateur blogger. Both should be equally protected, and both should be equally subject to laws against defaming someone or maliciously spreading false information.

The U.S. Bill of Rights prohibits "abridging freedom of the speech, or of the press." It doesn't mention electronic media, twitter, TV or radio. But it's clear that, like the press, all are covered by the overriding right to free speech.

You rightly point out the key problem that arises when you try to define journalists (supposedly in order to assign them extra protections): who decides? I would fight any attempt to license or certify journalists. Do you need a journalism degree to qualify? I never got one. Do you need an employer? Those are increasingly hard to find.

To my mind, you're a journalist if you disseminate information or opinions while respecting journalistic ethics and standards. Research what you write, seek out multiple and reliable sources for facts, get both sides of the story -- in short, seek the truth. Sometimes you'll still get it wrong; if so, retract the error. And if you're going to call anyone "a thug and a thief," don't do it to a lawyer.

As I was reading all of this,

Ramona — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 04:35:44 +0000

In reply to Just because I call myself a Journo doesn't mean I are one

As I was reading all of this, I wondered about Michigan's shield laws (not that I would ever need them) and this is what I found (last update April, 2008):

Both shield laws protect "a reporter or other person who is involved in the gathering or preparation of news for broadcast or publication." The shields appear to cover anyone who is involved in spreading "news" to the public, which should cover many online publishers and non-traditional journalists. However, Michigan courts have not had a chance to address the meaning of this statutory language and have not defined "news."

Looks like interpretations are going to be muddied and open to challenge for a while yet, until there's some sort of consensus on what is or is not journalism.

Interesting reading in a blog post by Mathew Ingram, where he writes about a lawsuit brought by Apple against a blogger in Washington state who they accused of revealing secrets. The appeals court ruled that the blogger had the same rights as a reporter:

Petitioners … like any newspaper or magazine, … operated enterprises whose raison d’etre was the dissemination of a particular kind of information to an interested readership… In no relevant respect do they appear to differ from a reporter or editor for a traditional business-oriented periodical who solicits or otherwise comes into possession of confidential internal information about a company.

And, as Ingram notes, the same logic can apply to on-scene video-recording:

In a decision by the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit earlier this year involving a case, a judge ruled that a man who recorded a video of police beating a man in Boston was entitled to the same protection as the mainstream press. Judge Kermit Lipez said this protection arguably extended to any “citizen journalist” and not just to members of the traditional media, saying the availability of devices like smartphones “means that… news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper” and that such changes “make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

I worry that if we paint "journalism" with too broad a brush it no longer has meaning. There still has to be a distinction, I think. Would proof of some kind of payment define a journalist? If so, how much is enough? Would a written contract do it? How specific would it have to be? Length of time blogging? Good writing skills? Who decides?

If every long-time blogger disseminating information can qualify in the law's eyes as a journalist, as it does in some states under shield laws, what kind of chaos will that eventually create in the courts?

Yet, if some bloggers perform like journalists shouldn't there be some protections for them?

I think of journalists as I do lawyers or any licensed professionals -- that is, there has been some extensive training involved and they've learned the ethics and rules of the trade along the way. Except that journalists don't have to be licensed and credentials aren't mandatory. And bloggers are even less constrained.

But in the name of transparency, citizen journo/bloggers could be extremely useful and might require the same protections.

Looks like there's going to be a bit of upheaval until this thing is settled. Should be interesting.

Wow! Yikes! That is just

Ramona — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:53:31 +0000

In reply to http://www.forbes.com/sites/k

Wow! Yikes! That is just nutty! (Did I say Wow?) Is this the clueless work of a nutcase or a really, really clumsy attempt at extortion?

I thought focusing on the distinction between blogger and journalist might be interesting, but it can't hold a candle to the back story. This whole unfolding saga is just fascinating!

Thanks so much for the Forbes link. I don't know how I missed it. Wow!

Damn! And all this time, I

chucktrotter — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:05:50 +0000

In reply to hahahhahahaahaha

Damn! And all this time, I thought DD was a Republican!

Rupert Murdoch would consider

Verified Atheist — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:52:28 +0000

In reply to http://www.forbes.com/sites/k

Rupert Murdoch would consider that journalism!

But no, in all seriousness, I've rethought my position on this. I still stand by my principle that bloggers are no less entitled to protections given to traditional journalists. However, no traditional journalist should be able to get away with that behavior either.

From the Forbes article:

Yes, there are bloggers who are journalists. But just because you have a blog doesn’t mean that what you do is journalism.

I'd extend that to say, and just because you write for a newspaper, that doesn't mean what you do is journalism, either.

For those who are interested, the Forbes article also sheds light on the size of the award.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/k

ertdfg — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:22:52 +0000

In reply to I think the real question

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/12/07/investment-firm-award...

Check the e-mail she sent them after 2 years of attacking posts and web search spoofing.

Is web page spoofing to drive hits away from their internet presence "journalism"? How about asking for a PR and Search Engine Services job for $2500/month to stop her own attacks on them?

Looking at what she was doing (and what Forbes has on this) I'm not convinced she should be defended as a Journalist.

She didn't explicitly demand money, so extortion might be tough to prove; but it looks extortion-like to me. Should that be covered by shield laws?

No, the penalty was decided

acanuck — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:29:18 +0000

In reply to acanuck, you make an

No, the penalty was decided by a jury. And Cox has no money, so the lawyer will never collect it.

hahahhahahaahaha

Richard Day — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:18:01 +0000

In reply to Well, I would say "Sweet

hahahhahahaahaha