NationStates Jolt Archive

just read an article about a Blogger named Josh Wolf who was sent to jail "Protecting his Confidential Sources." saying that the protections that are afforded to Journalists apply to him and other bloggers.

while the case itself is not my focus, a question asked in the article is. (you can google Josh Wolf for the full story) my question is...

Do You consider BLOGGERS and other similar people the same as Journalists?

and If so, should BLOGGERS be held accountable for their stories and pay in some way should their 'facts' be wrong? ('pay' doesn't necessarily mean 'Fines' or 'Jail time', but some form of accountability/responsiblity/punishment.)

If not, do you consider them to be sources of reliable news information?

What are your views on BLOGGERS?

Well, putting something on the internet is publishing it.
So...
- Yes, bloggers are journalists.
- Yes, they should be (and are) legally accountable for what they publish.
- As far as reliability is concerned, you have to judge each blog on its own merits, just as you do with any other form of media.

Frankly, the only reason more of them don't get sued is because most blogs have such a small readership. Effectively, taking legal action would just require them to repeat their accusations to a much wider audience.

The problem is that bloggers as a category cover everything from a 12 year old with a blogger page to actual independent journalists who are using the internet as an alternative publication means. The closer you get to that latter group, the more freedom of the press protections they should have. And in some recent cases, bloggers have done as good or better jobs than professional journalists have done in reporting news--because they got to the sources, did the investigations, etc. For instance, no one did a better job of on the spot reporting of the Scooter Libby trial than the FireDogLake bloggers did--they followed the story from the moment it broke, followed the court filings, and were in the courtroom observing every minute of it. If that's not journalism, what is?

In the case mentioned in the OP, I think that guy is absolutely a journalist and should be protected by whatever shield laws are available. He was a guy on the spot with a video camera, and the fact that he published his footage online instead of pushing it through a traditional media outlet that probably wouldn't have run it shouldn't change his position.

The mouth-piece and pseudo-journalism of FOX is accepted as "legitimate" by some, why can't blogging be a legitimate form of journalism? Yes, some of it is crass and badly written, but there are news sources which aren't necessarily Pulitzer Prize winners out there (the Sun...). There are blogs which can serve as decent, alternatives to conventional news outlets. Yes, some entries look like pure opinion, but you know what? Most newspapers have editorial sections, which is also just opinion!

Not all bloggers are journalists, but many definitely qualify.

And I think, in free speech cases like this, the courts should err on the side of providing too much protection instead of too little. The judge is in the wrong here.

If you think about it, the Internet did not exist back when the First Amendment was written, just as machineguns did not exist back when the Second Amendment was written. So, if people want to say that machineguns, because of their modernity and enhanced capability over 18th century firearms are not covered by the Second Amendment, we should therefore, on the same basis, deny the Internet the protection of the First Amendment - because the Internet did not exist back then, and it is far more powerful than a traditional printing press.

Therefore, "journalists" protected by the First Amendment should only be those who submit their writing to printing presses.

[/sarcasm]

Well, putting something on the internet is publishing it.
So...
- Yes, bloggers are journalists.
- Yes, they should be (and are) legally accountable for what they publish.
- As far as reliability is concerned, you have to judge each blog on its own merits, just as you do with any other form of media.

Frankly, the only reason more of them don't get sued is because most blogs have such a small readership. Effectively, taking legal action would just require them to repeat their accusations to a much wider audience.but publishing only means they're writers. and considering how easy it is to plagerize and 'steal' another person's work on the internet, is it truly journalism?

The mouth-piece and pseudo-journalism of FOX is accepted as "legitimate" by some, why can't blogging be a legitimate form of journalism? Yes, some of it is crass and badly written, but there are news sources which aren't necessarily Pulitzer Prize winners out there (the Sun...). There are blogs which can serve as decent, alternatives to conventional news outlets. Yes, some entries look like pure opinion, but you know what? Most newspapers have editorial sections, which is also just opinion!unfortunatly, even FOX NEWS is held accountable by what they do report. and newspapers have a clearly marked section titled "Editorials". Even news stations have programs that are editorials and not news casting. are blogs doing the same thing. saying what is opinion and what isn't?

Not all bloggers are journalists, but many definitely qualify.

And I think, in free speech cases like this, the courts should err on the side of providing too much protection instead of too little. The judge is in the wrong here.true, some try to be like Jouralists. others don't. however, what would qualify one to recieve such 'protection'. especially if the information they are withholding may lead to the arrest of a violent criminal. (one story I read, was that Wolf refused to give a copy of the UNEDITED tape which may have shown the person who was doing the assaulting.) would that be protected?

unfortunatly, even FOX NEWS is held accountable by what they do report. and newspapers have a clearly marked section titled "Editorials". Even news stations have programs that are editorials and not news casting. are blogs doing the same thing. saying what is opinion and what isn't?
There is a hidden bias in the main stream media for one agenda or another. They don't say it, but it becomes apparent when you compare how they approach a major story versus another station or media outlet. They are still expressing an opinion even if they say they aren't. I'm not referring to just FOX but all other sources. There can be a bias found in how they report a story; an opinion even if they make it clear.

that's true, but for the most part, when they get the story blatently wrong, Memogate, the reporter who was found making up stories, etc... the outlet is held accountable and ultimatly the journalist (being fired, having to make a public apology, etc...) what's holding the blogger accountable... especially for something like the internet where things truly never die.

As far as Rathergate goes, if there had been no bloggers, no one would have ever known the story was false.

There is a hidden bias in the main stream media for one agenda or another. They don't say it, but it becomes apparent when you compare how they approach a major story versus another station or media outlet. They are still expressing an opinion even if they say they aren't. I'm not referring to just FOX but all other sources. There can be a bias found in how they report a story; an opinion even if they make it clear.

that's true, but for the most part, when they get the story blatently wrong, Memogate, the reporter who was found making up stories, etc... the outlet is held accountable and ultimatly the journalist (being fired, having to make a public apology, etc...) what's holding the blogger accountable... especially for something like the internet where things truly never die.

Most bloggers are more akin to pundits, rather than actual journalists.

Blogs are often just peoples opinion on a subject, they don't have any standards in research in what they put up so how can they be called a journalist? Might as well call all NSers journalists every time we time we make a post.

Some blogs are held to standards by other bloggers. On the Internet, if you have wide, wide readership, and you make a mistake, someone WILL call you on it.

And your reputation is all you might have - lose that, and your blog vanishes.

Blogs are often just peoples opinion on a subject, they don't have any standards in research in what they put up so how can they be called a journalist? Might as well call all NSers journalists every time we make a post.

that's true, but for the most part, when they get the story blatently wrong, Memogate, the reporter who was found making up stories, etc... the outlet is held accountable and ultimatly the journalist (being fired, having to make a public apology, etc...) what's holding the blogger accountable... especially for something like the internet where things truly never die.

Peer pressure for one. They have to compete with other blogs, which may be more credible than others.

actually, I thought it was an examination of the "evidence" that lead to Rathergate (I thought that was memogate) being uncovered.

and even if that was true (and I'm not saying its not) does that qualify all bloggers as journalists?

No, but it shows you that regular journalists are not always held to "standards".

The examination of the evidence was initially done by bloggers - and CBS initially resisted examination, and attempted to deny that the memo was a fake.

As far as Rathergate goes, if there had been no bloggers, no one would have ever known the story was false.
actually, I thought it was an examination of the "evidence" that lead to Rathergate (I thought that was memogate) being uncovered.

and even if that was true (and I'm not saying its not) does that qualify all bloggers as journalists?

true, some try to be like Jouralists. others don't. however, what would qualify one to recieve such 'protection'.

something significantly less than massive support from the society of professional journalists, i'd wager

No, but it shows you that regular journalists are not always held to "standards".

The examination of the evidence was initially done by bloggers - and CBS initially resisted examination, and attempted to deny that the memo was a fake.
because they (CBS) backed their own people. Understandable, not right, but still understandable.

but ultimately, they were caught. just like the "Journalist" who was making up stories for years. and the result? Rather 'retired' to restore CBS' rep, the journalist was fired (loss of income) but what punishment could be metted to a blogger who does the same when the media used can keep false stories alive years after it's been proven false? (I still get the email about the cookie receipie) :p

and also, Rather reported the news, it was written by other people who should've been checking up and verifying the facts. so I don't blame Rather for that, but their fact-checkers, news writers. Rather was just the public face that got caught with it.

Most bloggers are more akin to pundits, rather than actual journalists.

however, people posting footage on indybay and selling parts of it to local tv news are pretty clearly acting as photo/video-journalists

however, people posting footage on indybay and selling parts of it to local tv news are pretty clearly acting as photo/video-journalists

Which is why I preceded my statement with the word "most".

but publishing only means they're writers. and considering how easy it is to plagerize and 'steal' another person's work on the internet, is it truly journalism?

In my opinion, many journalists in print and online media fail to meet good professional standards. That doesn't mean they aren't journalists; only that they are bad journalists.

that's true, but for the most part, when they get the story blatently wrong, Memogate, the reporter who was found making up stories, etc... the outlet is held accountable and ultimatly the journalist (being fired, having to make a public apology, etc...) what's holding the blogger accountable... especially for something like the internet where things truly never die.

I'm going to be a little starry-eyed and say that what holds the blogger accountable is the market of ideas online. If you're consistently, provably wrong, you often disappear from the major blogs. A good example is that guy from Truthout, can't remember his name, who claimed to have this incredible scoop that 5 people were going to be indicted by Fitzgerald in the Libby case. He was horribly wrong, obviously, and now no one will link to him. In his case, it wasn't the first time he'd been wrong, so it hurt him more.

Of course, being consistently wrong hasn't hurt Powerline or Michelle Malkin, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

I'm going to be a little starry-eyed and say that what holds the blogger accountable is the market of ideas online. If you're consistently, provably wrong, you often disappear from the major blogs. A good example is that guy from Truthout, can't remember his name, who claimed to have this incredible scoop that 5 people were going to be indicted by Fitzgerald in the Libby case. He was horribly wrong, obviously, and now no one will link to him. In his case, it wasn't the first time he'd been wrong, so it hurt him more.

Of course, being consistently wrong hasn't hurt Powerline or Michelle Malkin, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

I still maintain that most people on the internet spend most of their time doing precisely that.

I still maintain that most people on the internet spend most of their time doing precisely that.

Talking out of their asses? Prolly. Well, that and looking at porn.

I'm going to be a little starry-eyed and say that what holds the blogger accountable is the market of ideas online. If you're consistently, provably wrong, you often disappear from the major blogs. A good example is that guy from Truthout, can't remember his name, who claimed to have this incredible scoop that 5 people were going to be indicted by Fitzgerald in the Libby case. He was horribly wrong, obviously, and now no one will link to him. In his case, it wasn't the first time he'd been wrong, so it hurt him more.

Of course, being consistently wrong hasn't hurt Powerline or Michelle Malkin, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

It depends on how many people still believe you after you've said something so utterly wrong.

Works the same way with print media.

If they are members of the professional journo associations...then pretty much yeah.

If they are members of the professional journo associations...then pretty much yeah.

I'm sure that some of the people who work for Bild and the National Enquirer are members of professional journo associations...

I'm sure that some of the people who work for Bild and the National Enquirer are members of professional journo associations...

And the Sun and the Time and the Independent and the Hochi Shinbun and the Frankfurter Allgemeine ...

It matters not. They are still journos. They may be crap...they may be good...they may work for respected broadsheets or the shittiest red top around....but they are still journo's.