The digital world of news gathering and reporting has complicated the traditional definition of the journalist, which was defined in 1987 as one who gathers and reports information to disseminate to the public. Because of the broad-nature of this definition and the increasing number of people claiming to be journalists (bloggers, especially), many are arguing for a more specific definition.
As we discussed in class, the benefit of being defined, by law, as a journalist is their right to keep anonymous sources confidential and a protection against certain modes of speech.
Take a look at the following arguments in the debate section of the New York Times then write a response to whether you think Crystal Cox (and all bloggers for that matter) should be considered journalists by the law. Please use the following link as a source as well as two others (one may be from the textbook, though it doesn't have to be; you can rely on online sources for this post).
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
Bloggers are a new breed of journalist and arguably distinct from them as well. The judge in the case of Crystal Cox has set out 7 definable characteristics to qualify as a journalist. His list is appropriate and conservative; it does well to encompass many or all of the traditional traits that most can agree on: education in journalism, credentials or proof of affiliation with a recognized news entity; proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; and contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story. It may be the judge in this case, Judge Hernandez, was filling a void in precedent, a judgment that some say fell outside of his bounds (Coursey). However, I believe that functionally he has really achieved something. Bloggers are not journalists. That is an obvious statement, with which most bloggers would agree. My own personal hunch is that journalism and reporting at this time in this country are at such an all-time low that we desperately want bloggers to be journalists. Journalists also come in many shades these days, so perhaps it really is an honest episode of cultural confusion (see Vice magazine described in a recent New Yorker article). Youm begins his post with a lead into the developing issue when he states that the Oregon shield law needs to be updated. He cites Jason Shepard’s criteria as a starting point for determining whether a blogger can claim journalistic privilege: whether the blogger’s stated purpose centered on news-gathering and dissemination; whether news-gathering and editorial decision-making processes were regularly employed; and whether the end product of the blogger’s work was sufficiently important within the context of public interest. Also, of course, the bigger question is, “about how we protect the free flow of information -- and balance that free flow with other values such as a right to defend oneself in court -- in a day when anyone can publish online.”(Rosen) I agree with Coursey’s point of view when he says that, “some bloggers are journalists and most are not. “ However, that does not mean to me that laws cannot be passed to protect those bloggers that can be ID’d as deserving of protection under the law. As to Crystal Cox, it appears that she was not a good example of a journalist/blogger, that magical combination that everyone seems to be looking for. She did not fit the Judge’s criteria, and is also taken down a few times on the internet by apparently unbiased sources. This is not someone who rides the line between the two terms or inhabits a gray area in the law. She is an outlier. Again, this is a personal trait many readers would say is found in many bloggers.
ReplyDelete(CONTINUED)
ReplyDeleteCrystal Cox is a very interesting character who engaged in a one-woman rampage against a man who is now paying a very heavy financial and career penalty for her online smear campaign. She is not a journalist. According to well-written law blog about Cox: “Consider her bizarre cross-complaint suing the victim for suing her, or her demand that the judge and court staff sign a declaration of lack of conflict of interest (this is typical of unhinged pro se litigants; it must be on a web site someplace), or her attempt to spin her extortionate email as really being about misconduct against her, or her post-trial motion launching a broadside against a hapless juror based on a largely incomprehensible conspiracy theory.” (Ken). A pro se litigant means she was defending herself. The author continues, free speech cases often involve people like her. It is really a First Amendment right that is given whether you are a journalist or not. Once more, it seems that the real issue, somehow unspoken about, is whether we can rein in the power of the internet to destroy a reputation.
References
Coursey, D. (2012) You Be The Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists?. Tech, [blog] 2nd January, Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/01/02/you-be-the-judge-are-bloggers-journalists/ [Accessed: 4th April 2013].
Rosen, R. (2011) Why We Should Stop Asking Whether Bloggers Are Journalists. Tech, [blog] 13 December, Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/12/why-we-should-stop-asking-whether-bloggers-are-journalists/249864/ [Accessed: 4th April 2013].
Unknown. (2012) "Investigative Journalist" Crystal Cox's Latest Target: An Enemy's Three-Year-Old Daughter. Popehat, [blog] 30th March, Available at: http://www.popehat.com/2012/03/30/investigative-journalist-crystal-coxs-latest-target-an-enemys-three-year-old-daughter/ [Accessed: 4th April 2013].
A journalist should be defined as someone reporting the news, with no opinion and have valid sources. Whether it be reporting on national news, world problems, or even garbage celebrity columns. A Journalist has an obligation to report the facts and not to voice their opinion. A journalist who is trying to voice their opinion should display this in an opinion page in order to show the audience that it is clearly an opinion. Without this label, an article that is obviously bias will be taken as fact by the reader. People read highly biased reports of conservative and liberal papers as fact, with no objection to their slant thoughts and opinions that are displayed throughout the piece. A blogger runs into the problem of not being associated with a news organization of some sort (New York Times Article). With so many newspapers themselves displaying obvious slant, a blogger and a journalist seem to be on the same page. However, the original purpose of a journalist is to serve as the fourth estate(http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/boaz/pol326/feb12.htm). Especially in a democracy, it is important to inform citizens instead of feeding them news that they want to hear. However, in this day and age we could pick the news that sounds most appealing to our biases and preferences. Journalists are failing America’s democracy. Instead of giving the news we need, they are a mere chef cooking up the garbage and fluff that surrounds our airwaves on a daily basis. Bloggers are in the lines of the first amendment, however they are not journalist. Why? To me bloggers can post whatever they want. The internet is a very wide and powerful place with lots of opinions and information. If we are to give bloggers the right to anonymous sources, there would be no validity to anything a blogger has to say. Yes, I defined a journalist who is trying to report the news, but they should be accountable for their sources. Bloggers can make up anything they want with false documentation. The Supreme Court ruled that you need to look to the other side for fact checking (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/01/02/you-be-the-judge-are-bloggers-journalists/). I understand that bloggers may follow these criteria, but you can’t give this right to every blogger and you can’t exclude out every other blog. Although some bloggers are trying just to report the news, there is a problem in allowing bloggers to gain access to anonymous sources.
ReplyDelete.
The development of the Internet and the ease of access that many Americans have to it is transforming our world in many ways. One way in which the Internet has done this is by making certain past laws and rulings outdated, such as the legal definition of a journalist. The Internet has made it possible for anyone to post a story or comment online for the world to see, many considering themselves “bloggers”. This is a great advancement because it allows for more diverse opinions and voices to be heard rather than the usual business run newspapers and news station broadcasts. Along with these benefits, though, also comes a disruption in what was formerly a somewhat simple definition of who could be named a journalist. As Stuart Benjamin mentions, “In the 1960s and 70s, when the Supreme Court laid out free speech limits on libel and defamation, the obvious potential sources of false statements that could seriously harm one’s reputation (and thus be worth suing for libel or defamation) were large organizations like newspapers, magazines and broadcasters” (Angelotti). These laws were created before Internet and blogging was created.
ReplyDeleteWhen defining what a journalist is in the Crystal Cox case, the judge set specific guidelines to be considered one. These guidelines were stated as, “Education in journalism; Credentials or proof of affiliation with a recognized news entity; Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; Keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; Mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; Contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story” (Coursey). These requirements are too strict for this to be a functioning definition. Just because someone does not have any formal education in journalism does not mean that they aren’t able to provide interesting, truthful, and important stories to the public. Also, on the others side, just because someone studied journalism does not guarantee that they will be honest and fair. One interesting question is when a “defined journalist” leaves his or her current job, such as Dan Gillmor who was the technology columnist at the San Jose Mercury News for a decade and left his job to blog, is he no longer considered a journalist even though he has a long history of experience in the journalist field? Gillmor says on this matter, “By [the judge's] bizarre and dangerous standard, I apparently stopped being a journalist the day I left my newspaper job after a quarter-century of writing for newspapers” (Hempel).
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteI believe that the definition of a journalist needs to be re-determined and include a broader group of people, including some bloggers. I believe that some bloggers function very similarly to newspaper writers, broadcasters, and other forms of journalism by collecting, organizing, and sending information out to the public with a focus on reporting the truth. I also believe that there are some bloggers who are not serious and do not focus on getting information out to the public in the same way, and as Ellyn Angelotti puts it, is “a parking lot of error, misinformation, rumor and junk” (Angelotti). Separating these two groups of bloggers would be extremely difficult though, but Kyu Ho Youm has some ideas on how to judge bloggers by evalutating “whether the blogger’s stated purpose centered on news-gathering and dissemination; whether news-gathering and editorial decision-making processes were regularly employed; and whether the end product of the blogger’s work was sufficiently important within the context of public interest” (Angelotti). Some type of system could be created where bloggers could register their site for approval to be considered a journalist, although determining this would be extremely difficult. I do believe, though, that something needs to happen in order to widen the term “journalist” so that certain bloggers can be protected under the same laws as journalists.
Works Cited
Angelotti, Ellyn, Stuart Benjamin, Kelli L. Sager, and Kyu Ho Youm. "Are All Bloggers Journalists?" New York Times. New York Times, 11 Dec. 2011. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.
Coursey, David. "You Be The Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 02 Jan. 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
Hempel, Jessi. "Are All Bloggers Journalists?" Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg L.P., 6 Mar. 2005. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.
In the article, “The Problem With Pre-Internet Laws,” Sager makes the important statement, “The notion that bloggers have some lower standard of protection is wholly inconsistent with what the United States Supreme Court has recognized as a necessary marketplace of ideas, where one’s ability to communicate freely is not dependent on access to a printing press or broadcast equipment.” Or, in other words, it is ridiculous to believe that bloggers do not have the same rights as journalists. The phrase that stands out the most to me in this quote is ‘marketplace of ideas’. Bloggers, just like journalists, write about their ideas. There is no law that says any writer, whether a blogger or a journalist, has to write in a way that is completely objective. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, so why in the world should Crystal Cox be sued for expressing the way she feels? Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment; part of the United States Constitution that was created after wars were fought to establish these rights. Crystal Cox was sued for expressing her opinion on her own blog, so why does the First Amendment even exist if even government officials do not abide by it? Every writer should be able to express his or her opinions, it is up to readers to decide what they agree with and what they do not.
ReplyDeleteThis issue as a whole takes me back to high school history class where I remember learning about the trial of John Peter Zenger in 1734. Much like several citizens of New York at this time, Zenger had a great dislike for the new Governor, William Cosby. As a writer, Zenger saw the opportunity to voice his disagreement with Cosby’s methods and policies. He was arrested for “seditious libel” (basically, writing with intended hatred) after publishing articles that criticized Cosby as a governor. After a trial was held, Zenger was found not guilty. In his summation, Zenger’s attorney stated that “They [men] have a right publicly to remonstrate against the abuses of power in the strongest terms”. If Zenger won this case in Colonial America, then there is no reason why Cox should have lost her case today.
Relatedly, in the article, “A Broader Definition of a ‘Journalist,’” Angelotti makes a point by saying standards and practices of journalism are ever evolving. New technological advances come about so often these days that it is nearly impossible to set standards of what information is and is not reliable. She also says that there are many bloggers who are more trustworthy than journalists that write for highly esteemed, popular newspapers. Again, I emphasize that those who are critical of writers without the official ‘journalist’ title need to recognize that it is partly the reader’s job to decide what information sources are reliable. As a reader, if you are looking to educate yourself on a particular issue, it is up to you to recognize that not every writer writes completely objectively, and that everyone is entitled to expressing an opinion.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengeraccount.html
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
Although Judge Hernandez ruled that blogger, Crystal Cox, was found guilty of defamation of character and could not claim protections afforded to journalists, this ruling should be considered unfair. Bloggers should have the same rights as journalists, considering they are doing the same thing; writing the news. According to a NY Times article by Ellyn Angelotti, a journalist “possesses a hunger to pursue the truth and share it in compelling ways.” Essentially, isn’t that the exact same thing a blogger is doing? Angelotti argues that some blogs are equally, and sometimes more, trustworthy than news reports by journalists. The textbook defines news as “the process of gathering information and making narrative reports- edited by individuals for news organizations- that offer selected frames of reference” (p. 420). In an article by David Coursey, “You be the Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists?” he mentions the seven things one must have in order to be defined as a journalist. They include: education in journalism, credentials or proof of affiliation with a recognized new entity, proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosure of conflicts of interest, keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted, mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources, creation of an independent product rather than assembling writing and posting of others, and contacting the “other side” to get both sides of a story. According to this, the only difference between a blogger and a journalist is that a journalist has a degree in journalism and a blogger does not. A blogger must do all of the other things too in order to be a resourceful and trustworthy source of information. If a degree is the only thing that truly separates a blogger and a journalist then it should be dismissed and bloggers should be treated as journalists. Back to Ellyn Angelotti’s argument, she makes a valid point when she states that “instead of focusing on who reports focus on how they are reporting.” I agree with this statement 100%. As long as these bloggers are factual and true they deserve the same rights as a journalist. Online publishers should be judged accordingly to make sure they are making correct statements. The First Amendment should allow everyone the freedom of speech and the quality and integrity of a story is what should be judged.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/01/02/you-be-the-judge-are-bloggers-journalists/
Media and Culture textbook
Considering a blogger, a journalist is not something that is an easy task. Bloggers do report and can say very important facts that may cause pretty big impacts. The flip side is anybody can be a blogger and you don’t have to be affiliated with any journalist group. Even though they are not a journalist by definition, because the definition of a journalist is so vague it’s hard to pin point what a journalist is so therefore it makes this a tricky situation. Another important topic to bring up in this discussion is the shield laws and what they cover. The problem is the laws are so vague that it’s easy to find holes in it. As said by Kelli L. Sager “The notion that bloggers have some lower standard of protection is wholly inconsistent with what the United States Supreme Court has recognized as a necessary marketplace of ideas, where one’s ability to communicate freely is not dependent on access to a printing press or broadcast equipment.” This is really how I feel about the situation considering them as journalists I am unsure about, but I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for their ideas. In my opinion I don’t think Crystal Cox was in the wrong. I believe that she was just exercising her freedom of speech, but I still don’t know if I would consider her a journalist. With that being said I don’t think I could say she is not a journalist. Christopher B. Daly said “One approach to an answer is historical. In fact, bloggers stand squarely in a long-standing journalistic tradition. In this country, their roots go back to the authors of the often-anonymous writings that helped to found America itself by encouraging the rebellion against Britain.” I thought this was important because it shows bloggers have been a huge part on reporting on news and getting ideas out there since the beginning. I think it’s important to have different views on a subject or an event and to have many of them. If you tell bloggers that they have to censor or might not be able to participate in there blogs at all we will be limiting the many point of views and can do more harm to our society than good. If important people or corporations can limit what is said about them, that is a scary thought and I could see that leading to bigger problems. Said by Chris Crum “Where exactly is the line that turns a blog into a “news service”? When it has no opinion? Show me a news service that doesn’t have any opinion whatsoever. Even if you can show me one, there are plenty that do and are still likely considered news services in this case”. I feel this is important because as we have learned in class mostly all news stationed are owned by one person or one corporation. It is also known that certain news stations are either on the conservative side or liberal. There are news stations that are closer to not having an opinion or a certain agenda. So should these news stations that are one sided be prosecuted and be censored or put through a court case? If you think they should or shouldn’t the fact is that they are not. In the end I still don’t think bloggers should be considered journalists because what is considered a journalist is very vague, but I don’t think they should be stopped from saying what they want to say because I believe in freedom of speech.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bu.edu/cdaly/whoisajournalist.html
http://www.webpronews.com/are-bloggers-journalists-2-2011-12
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
There is clearly some disagreement as to whether Crystal Cox herself could be considered an official “journalist.” However, what most of the debaters seem to agree on is that the laws upon which this is based should be altered to be more specific. Even Kyu Ho Youm, the debator who seemed the most actively opposed to Crystal Cox’s case agreed that some blogs should be considered worthy of journalist privileges. All four seem to come to the conclusion that the content, history, and intent of a blog should be considered more carefully than the status of the blogger himself or herself.
ReplyDeleteAt the heart of this debate, there is a more emotional debate as to the character of typical bloggers vs journalists. Jay Rosens makes numerous connections to psychology in his presentation, “bloggers and journalists are each other’s ideal ‘other.’” He further cites numerous examples of journalists attacking bloggers both for illegitimate experience and inferiority of character, “And to go with this preferred or idealized self, a demonized other, the pajama-wearing, basement-dwelling blogger.” “From the blogger’s side, the conflict with journalists helps preserve a ragged innocence, which is itself a kind of power, by falsely locating all the power in Big Media.” It’s a fascinating observation because it’s the same kind of subtle vibe I get from peers who run blogs about their views towards newspapers. People like having the ability to state their own opinions and come to their own conclusion without having to take the journalists’ word for it.
But this still leaves us with the question as to whether “any” bloggers could really be considered journalists. A quote Jay Rosen used that seems to summarize the antagonism felt between journalists and bloggers is as follows:
“[Our] reporters work in difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions. They do not blog from mommy’s basement, cutting and pasting what others have reported, while putting it under a cute pen name on the Internet.
Instead, the Tribune’s reporters are out knocking on doors in violent neighborhoods late at night, looking for witnesses after murders. Or they stand in the morgue and talk to the families of the dead. Tribune reporters are not anonymous. They use their own names, put them at the top of their stories and are accountable for what they write.”
As emotional and self-idealizing as this is, it is the strongest argument for the notion that most bloggers should not be given the privileges of journalists. Journalists are professional, bloggers are amateurish. That is the stereotype. The law should be adapted to deal more fully with that stereotype on both sides. If the blogs display professional journalist procedures, they should be considered journalism.
Jay Rosen’s study: http://pressthink.org/2011/03/the-psychology-of-bloggers-vs-journalists-my-talk-at-south-by-southwest/
John Kass: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-20/business/ct-met-kass-1020-20101020_1_frat-house-awe-lewd-behavior
Blogging over the years has become a huge part of society and is used by many individuals as a media outlet. In my opinion I feel that bloggers are the “modern journalist”. The Internet is by far the most visited outlet to encounter new information and learn of current events by individuals in our society. Therefore the blogger is becoming somewhat prominent in our society and the Internet has made it possible for anyone to become one. I am for blogging and the large diversification of opinions it offers. In the New York Times article Are All Bloggers Journalists it was stated that “In the 1960s and 70s, when the Supreme Court laid out free speech limits on libel and defamation, the obvious potential sources of false statements that could seriously harm one’s reputation (and thus be worth suing for libel or defamation) were large organizations like newspapers, magazines and broadcasters” I feel that a revamping of these laws created about fifty years ago is extremely important. Often individuals argue whether or not bloggers should be considered journalists by law. Judge Hernandez in Crystal Cox’s case felt that an individual must meet seven requirements to qualify as a journalist. These seven qualifications were education in journalism, credentials or proof of affiliation with a recognized news entity, proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest, keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted, mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources, creation of an independent product, and contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story. Through the judge’s definition and his qualification requirements for a writer to be classified a journalist, he somewhat implied that almost all bloggers are not journalists. I feel that the requirements offered by the judge were a little too strict.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCONTINUED........
ReplyDeleteMany individuals who don’t meet all seven of these requirements still have the ability to share informative and nonbiased stories with the public. Chris Crum in a publishing stated, “Not all blogging is journalism, but if you ask me, not all so-called “journalism” is either. There just isn’t a clear line.” Although I believe that many bloggers and the information they share should not be constituted as journalism, I feel that it is possible to scour the Internet and find a number who live up to journalistic standards and expectations. In the New York Times article “A Broader Definition of a Journalist” Angelotti makes a fantastic point in referring to journalism and the fact that it’s practices are ever evolving. We live in a society that surrounds us with infinite amounts of information and technology that is constantly advancing. With all this falsity that surrounds us it is our responsibility to sort through information and examine it before deeming something as credible. Angelotti describes this information as a “parking lot of error, misinformation, rumor and junk”. She makes note that it very difficult and time consuming to disseminate a legitimate blogger from an illegitimate one. I feel that new laws should be manufactured to make clear and official distinctions of the matter and allow for legitimate bloggers to receive the same treatment and protection as journalists.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
http://www.webpronews.com/are-bloggers-journalists-2-2011-12
With these current SHIELD laws in place, it is difficult to place a concrete definition on journalism and bloggers. However, we are asking ourselves the wrong question, who is a journalist? “Is the wrong question, I believe. The vastly more relevant issue is this: What is journalism?” That author CJ Cornell stated as a direct result of the Crystal Cox verdict. For example, if you were to study thoroughly about a specific topic, say medicine, and had more knowledge then the regular person on medicine. Would you be considered a pharmacist, or maybe even a doctor, due to the fact you have a greater understanding then other people. The answer is no, just because someone can study medicine or write on a blog as a hobby or something they enjoy doing, it does not give them the same rights as another person with a degree as a journalist. Kyu Ho Youm, the Jonathan Marshall First Amendment Chair at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication, stated that “the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status,” reiterating my point, that not just anyone who can gather information and post it on a blog gives them professional status as a journalist, according to the First Amendment. Although I do not think bloggers should be considered journalists under the law, due to the unprofessionalism and not having a degree of some sort in journalism, bloggers are important to all journalists. In an interview with Talat Hussain, a veteran journalist and Pakistani new anchor, he says: “In fact, if anything, those online acts as a judge on mainstream journalists in the highly digitized sphere of media.” Due to the judge-like actions, such as reading and formulating their own beliefs from journalists, bloggers should have their own set of rules separate from journalism but can allow them judge these journalists free of the SHIELD laws, due to the fact the person may not have professional status as one. “They are the ones who have blogs on us, they are the ones who have websites on us – they are the ones who are taking the mickey out of us, which is fine really, but it is a sort of supra independent sphere that has been created by technology.” Bloggers create a special society on the internet which allows journalists and any person with a computer to read their opinions based on journalists articles and help journalists in the future with the interpretation and reiteration of information used. Even though bloggers should not be considered journalists, they are important to the media field and should have specific laws and right of their own, apart of the SHIELD laws.
ReplyDeletehttp://tribune.com.pk/story/412875/bloggers-are-not-journalists-talat-hussain/
http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2012/01/after-crystal-cox-verdict-its-time-to-define-who-is-a-journalist026.html
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law
First Part:
ReplyDeleteAs we have discussed in class, defining who can be considered a journalist is not the easiest task to accomplish, especially when it comes to keeping everyone satisfied with this definition. Everyone may be able to agree that, for the most part, a journalist for a newspaper or magazine is considered a ‘journalist’. However, as we have seen through the Cox court case, and the judge’s rulings, not everyone is able to agree on whether a blogger can be considered a ‘journalist’. I feel that it should not matter who you work for, how much schooling you have had, or where you publish your information, if you are sharing information with the public, you should be considered a journalist. As Ellyn Angelotti wrote in The New York Times, “A journalist -- good or bad -- possesses a hunger to pursue the truth and to share it in compelling ways. Yet some of the best journalists have had no academic training in the field.” (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists). Journalism is a lot different from other specialty jobs where there is a clear cut definition of what it is, and a straight pathway to being able to practice it (either through school or by getting a license). As Angelotti points out, you do not need training to be a great journalist. John Dvorak adds to this idea in his article when he says “As far as I'm concerned, bloggers can easily be considered journalists if they claim to be taking part in journalistic endeavors. That means reporting.” (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists). In other words, if you mean to report information, to inform others of the knowledge you have obtained, you can be considered a journalist. To a certain point I believe this to be true. Anyone can claim that they are a journalist based on the fact that they shared information with others. As Angelotti goes on, she explains “But it shouldn't matter whether the person calls himself a journalist or not, nor where he publishes a story. The quality of the story and the integrity of the method of reporting should count. By that standard, some bloggers would qualify as journalists while some deadwood reporters at newspapers would fail.” (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists). Simply put, you might have a different day job, but you can produce materials that are, and should be, considered journalism, without being affiliated with a big newspaper company. The same way that you can claim to be producing journalism as a blogger or as newspaper reporter, when it may in-fact not be.
Continued:
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the judge’s ruling in the Cox case, it is important to think about the laws that he was using as a reference. Kelli Sager wrote in The New York Times, “Because most laws were written before the Internet existed, they often refer to then-existing media -- newspapers, magazines and the like -- or simply to “journalists,” without defining who is a journalist.” (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists).
Anything that was meant to protect a journalist before the internet existed should today be applied to those who practice journalistic writing through the internet. Dvorak supports this idea when he says “Just because the media have modernized, it does not suddenly mean that the rules have changed.”(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397450,00.asp). The newer forms of media should not be left out of the laws just because they were not around when the laws were made. They qualify as forms of media and do the same things that other forms do; inform us. Mathew Ingram wrote in his article “I think we have to resist the temptation to restrict our definition of journalism, just because there is some bad journalism out there (something there was plenty of before the Internet and blogging came along).” (http://gigaom.com/2011/12/15/defining-journalism-is-a-lot-easier-said-than-done/). With that said, anyone who claims to be practicing journalism may not really be, and this is true for someone who writes a blog, a newspaper article, or is a reporter for a news station. There is a difference between someone who can practice good journalism, and someone who thinks they are practicing good journalism. This has been true long before the internet came about, as Ingram states, and will be true for years to come. As Sager’s article comes to an end, she concludes with “ Given the many important stories originating from bloggers, it is hard to imagine a rationale for the wholesale exclusion of those writers from the protections that shield laws provide, whether they are called “journalists” or not.” (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists). Whether they are officially seen as journalists by the law or not, those bloggers who share important information with the rest of the world should be entitled to the same protections as though who do the same thing through a newspaper or magazine article.
http://gigaom.com/2011/12/15/defining-journalism-is-a-lot-easier-said-than-done/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397450,00.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
When it comes to bloggers and whether or not they should be considered journalists, I feel they are two very different things and should not be protected the same way. I feel this way solely because anyone can be a blogger, I could start up a blog right now as well as everyone else in this country. Would that make everyone in the United States a journalist? I don’t think so. Before starting this assignment I was really conflicted about where I stood in this debate so I went to my housemates for opinions. My housemate Anya said, “Anyone can be an asshole with a keyboard, that doesn’t make them a journalist”. It struck me then that there had to be a distinction between the true journalist bloggers and those who started a blog just because they can.I do believe that there are many bloggers who do have the intent to put information out there and operate a more credible blog than others, but there should be a standard to identify those bloggers from the rest. The Forbes article titled “You Be The Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists?” identifies the seven standards set by the government in order to be considered a journalist and the author of this article says himself that by these standards, he would be unable to call himself a journalist.
ReplyDelete1. “Education in journalism.
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 story”
There is no denying that the standards should be altered because our culture has changed so much in regards to journalism. Kelli L. Sager writes, “Because most laws were written before the Internet existed, they often refer to then-existing media -- newspapers, magazines and the like -- or simply to “journalists,” without defining who is a journalist” (New York Times). Sager brings up the important fact that these laws are outdated. Many newspapers and journalists are moving away from printed mediums and actively pursuing an online news environment. If the laws are not altered, no one will be considered a journalist, especially not independent bloggers. I found the article “5 Reasons That Bloggers Should be Considered Journalists” Where they list what they believe qualifies a blogger as a journalist.
“1. They Have a Large Audience
2. They Earn Income From Their Blogs
3. They Spend Time Writing and Researching
4. They Cover Popular and Current Topics
5. They Follow Similar Laws and Guidelines”
These are standards that I can agree with one hundred percent. To me, this defines a credible blogger. Until the standards for journalists have changed, rulings like the Cox ruling, seem to be unfair.
With the ever increasing amount of technology in the 21st century, blogging has taken the world by storm. The internet is an open and free source; therefore blogging is available 24/7 to anyone who wishes to take part. Blogging has become so wildly popular that many are considering the internet activity as their livelihood. Regarding the Crystal Cox case, I agree with the ruling and do not agree Miss Cox should be protected under the shield laws. The laws are there to protect individuals who go out and have a professional career in journalism. Blogging should not be regarded as journalism because of its free nature for anyone to give their opinion. Taking from Chris Pirillo’s quote , “Bloggers tend write what they know, think and feel”(Pirillo); I believe a blog is like a diary or journal where the writer is free to disclose their feelings or opinions; where as a journalist goes out and finds the facts and reports them in an objective fashion. Journalists are paid to report their findings, while bloggers are writing for the purpose of their own longing. Judge, Hernandez from the Cox case voiced his 7 qualifications for an individual to be a journalist and from the list I think two are extremely important. To be a true journalist one should be educated in journalism and have valid credentials with a known news organization (Coursey). Having a background and understanding of the field, is what I believe really sets apart bloggers from journalists. This is the idea that proves anyone can not classify themselves into this career. If I read a book on how to performance surgery, that doesn’t give me the qualifications to become a surgeon. The same goes for journalists, because I write a blog that doesn’t prove I hold all the essentials to call myself a journalist. I do believe that it is hard to draw the line between a blogger and a journalist. Bloggers are a part of the media but, in my opinion, are not worthy to be known as journalists and be protected under the shield laws.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
http://chris.pirillo.com/are-bloggers-journalists-are-blogs-new-journalism/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/01/02/you-be-the-judge-are-bloggers-journalists/
With new technology and information, blogging has become a new way to share and receive information such as news and current events. According to Webster Dictionary, a blogger is one who updates a blog, which is A Web site on which an individual or group of users record opinions, information, etc. on a regular basis. People can blog about all sorts of things from current events, to sports, to politics. Although blogging is a bit more informal the question remains, are bloggers journalists? According to the federal judge in the Crystal Cox case, in order to be a journalist and be protected by shield laws, one must cover seven requirements. These are Education in journalism, Credentials or proof of affiliation with a recognized news entity, Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest, Keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted, Mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources, Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others and Contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of a journalist, I think of a reporter who is affiliated with the media and who follows a story to interview people and get both sides of a story. I think it would be hard to put bloggers into the category of journalists. Journalists have to meet certain criteria in the newsroom, they have deadlines and they follow a strict form of writing that is not the same as regular writing, for example the inverted pyramid. In my opinion, blog writing is a little less formal and is a bit more biased than a regular news story. Also, journalists have credentials. They have studied journalism to an extent and are affiliated with a newspaper or another form of media. If someone is following a blog, the blogger doesn’t have to meet any criteria or have a degree in journalism, anyone can blog. Lastly, without deadlines or editors, bloggers can think of what they want to say and how they want to say it. They can retract misinformation easily and have the opportunity to present only one side to the story whereas a journalist I feel is more objective and is held to a higher standard. Although blogging presents news in similar ways to journalism, I don’t believe that bloggers should be considered journalists and be protected by the same laws that journalists are protected by.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/01/02/you-be-the-judge-are-bloggers-journalists/
http://tentblogger.com/professional-blogger/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, most people have a Facebook page. Even my grandmother is on Facebook! Most of us write status updates, post videos, and write our opinions on certain topics. Couldn’t I argue that my 74 year old grandma is a blogger? The term and act of blogging is a tricky thing to define. Bloggers are those who, “keep and update a blog,” where a blog is defined as “weblog” (Freedictionary.com). The part that gets tricky is that isn’t everyone who posts information on the internet a blogger? Journalists differ from bloggers in that a journalist is defined as, “One whose occupation is journalism” (Freedictionary.com). Journalists are protected by shield laws, meaning that journalists do not have to divulge their sources, the journalistic privilege. The laws protecting journalists were written prior to internet times. Most journalists worked for newspapers and magazines. Obviously, bloggers would not be considered journalists, as no one, especially lawmakers, had even begun to think of those who published on the internet. I argue that bloggers should be considered journalists by the law.
ReplyDeleteCrystal Cox was convicted of defamation in an Oregon courtroom. Cox, a blogger, published defaming information about an executive. As she was employed as a real estate agent, and not a journalist, Cox was not protected by the shield laws for her internet published views. I, like Kelli Sager, “a partner in the Los Angeles office of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP”, and Ellyn Angelotti, a teacher of “media, digital trends and media law at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalism and democracy in St. Petersburg, Florida,” believe that the First Amendment should protect all writers, those hired as journalists or not (NY Times). The First Amendment guarantees us the freedom of expression (First Amendment). As Americans, we are legally able to express our opinions. As a blogger, I do not see how they would not be guaranteed their first amendment right. Journalist or not, this doesn’t seem constitutional to me.
I believe that the journalist shield laws need to be updated. Kyu Ho Youm, “the Jonathan Marshall First Amendment Chair at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication,” also feels that the laws need updating (NY Times). As previously stated, the journalist shield laws were written prior to the internet’s establishment. Therefore, bloggers were not mentioned as legitimate publishers of information. Being that it is the year 2013, and the internet is a huge part in the American lifestyle, I think the laws should be updated to reflect bloggers as journalists, whose purpose is to disseminate information to the public. Bloggers deserve to be protected by the first amendment, as do all American citizens, and should not be penalized just because they do not fit an antiquated definition.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blogger
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/journalist
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
Nowadays, American people think that a blogger is the same as a journalist. They want to be protected by the law. William Safire said, people who wrote pamphlets comment on current affairs should have the same rights with the New York Times. The definition of a journalist should not be a stickler for credentials and if you force journalist to disclose information source, contrary to the public interest, it cause many people who wanted to whistle alert will refuse to come forward and journalist will not be able to expose to the people who have the right to know the information. But in china, a blogger is very different from journalist and I think blogger cannot be the same as a journalist. Journalist is a kind of job, he or she needs to know the truth, find the truth and report the truth. Many people wrote blogs almost about their personal life and current political affairs, entertainment, sports, news and business. According to the survey, bloggers who are engaged in writing technology accounted for only 4%. Most of them like to put gossips in blogs, so almost no media institutions are willing to sponsor bloggers. The whistle blowing behavior of blog brings a lot of convenience to the journalist’s information collection. Also, it exposes some truth in the society and brings new clues. We cannot deny this. But if we make the explosive revelations to the news and make the bloggers becomes journalists, it’s also a bad thing because many people may think expressing is the same as report. Nowadays, citizens enjoy the right to the freedom of expression and after the blog technology was born, it has given people the convenience of free expression. But many bloggers posting articles anonymously, which means they do not have responsibility about their articles. So sometimes they might be making up some fake stories to slander other people. Bloggers can ignore the truth but journalists cannot. I think bloggers are more like commentators. They find fault with things, starting from self subjective stance and express their own opinions. Anyway, I believe that journalists should be protected by the law and bloggers should not.
ReplyDeleteSources
http://www.techweb.com.cn/news/2005-07-21/11345.shtml
http://news.ccidnet.com/art/1032/20060724/650725_1.html
A journalist is defined as a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television. A blog is defined as a website on which an individual or group of users record opinions and information on a regular basis. The people that write these blogs are considered bloggers. To be a journalist you must follow a code of ethics. You must seek the truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. In the case of Crystal L. Cox, she lost, stating that she was not a real journalist. The judge said, “ I never intended to suggest that bloggers cant be journalists, only that Ms. Cox did not fit the definition.” “In my discussion, I did not state that a person who ‘blogs’ could never be considered ‘media.’ I also did not state that to be considered ‘media,’ one had to possess all or most of the characteristics I recited.” (Media Decoder) Journalists have shield laws. A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters’ privileges. In my opinion journalists and bloggers are not the same. I don’t think bloggers should have any form of protection. Yes, everyone has freedom of speech, but journalists are here to report the facts. Bloggers give information based on opinion. Journalists report stories. A lot of bloggers use blogs for their own personal use, such as to describe their day or “hate” on another.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/should-we-rethink-shield-laws
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/judge-clarifies-that-bloggers-can-be-journalists-just-not-one-in-particular/
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=definition+of+a+journalist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States
In my opinion bloggers should not be consider as journalist because journalist write for papers and have to earn a degree. While bloggers only need a computer and some ideas on what to write about. If I wanted to I could be a blogger as my job and possibly not even graduate from college. The requirements for blogs are much different than those for a journalist. In the case of Crystal Cox she was found guilty of defamation for accusing a founder of an investment group of acting unethical and illegally. I disagree with Kyu Ho Youm when he says “Judge Hernandez ruled correctly that Crystal Cox” because even though she wasn’t a journalist she still has her freedom of speech rights. I do agree when Kyu Ho Youm says the self-proclaimed “investigative blogger,” was not a journalist, so she was not privileged to protect her source.” They should have a clear definition of what a blogger is and certain laws to protect blogger from having to say where they got there sources. When I think of a blog I think of a place where someone writes their opinions of whatever issues they find to be important. When Ellyn Angelotti says “Blogs compete with mainstream media every day. In some cases, they have become more trustworthy as sources of information than some old school practitioners” I disagrees I don’t think that blogs are more trust worthy then other types of media.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law
The fact that bloggers are being argued worldwide if they have the same constitutional rights as other authors or publishers, and whether bloggers should be afforded certain statutory protections that apply to mainstream media, such as retraction statutes and reporters shield laws is absolutely ridiculous(Sager). It is clear in most peoples eyes that there is a very big difference between a journalist, and a blogger. A journalist uses facts to create a point, and with that point creates a well rounded story for the news. A blogger, is not like a journalist because a blogger posts their opinion. Exactly what we do on this site where we create opinions based on a question we ask, or what we see, that is what a blogger in definition form is. Although they are different, I think it would be beneficial if there was a bigger group of journalists, with the intent to having bloggers apart of the big group. In my opinion, I think that bloggers, and journalists are very similar in the way they create the newspapers. Think about it, both parts (being a journalists, and a blogger) indeed collect data and create a story based on the information they pick up. The only difference is that a journalist creates a storyline based on facts, while a blogger creates an opinionated view based on what they have collected. Oregon’s shield law does not recognize the blog as a “medium of communication” worthy of special protection (Angelotti). I am not sure what this means, but in my opinion I think that bloggers do deserve the special protection. It is still a form of writing that is reporting the news. We should celebrate how technology lets us express more speech than ever before -- without discriminating against the “non-journalists (Angelotti).” With this said, I completely agree that there should be no comparison in the sense of having a law to protect the definition of a journalist. In my conclusion, I agree that we should totally celebrate how more people are involved in world decisions, and just the news in general, and stop thinking about how bloggers are "not-journalistic." A journalist is a writer, and in my opinion, bloggers are as well.
ReplyDeleteTechnology has had a crucial impact on jobs and the Internet is extremely helpful in displaying information to the public. In other words, access to information is just one click away whether it be on your computer, smart phone, or tablet. Blogging is a relatively new form of posting information through the internet. It has made it much easier for some people and there’s always a topic to blog about. Bloggers are essentially journalists in the way that they report their information and inform the public. While a journalist is protected by the Shield Laws, there is the rising question that the Shield Laws shouldn’t cover a blogger. Defining who a journalist is has been a difficult interpretation, so it hasn’t been easy for the government to decide if bloggers should be included. There is no doubt that the interpretation of the Shield Laws is too broad and that in order for a blogger to be protected or persecuted by the laws, there needs to be a more specific definition. Crystal Cox an “investigative blogger” was not ruled under a journalist during a controversial court case. The judge ruled that “to qualify for basic First Amendment protections like state shield laws, freelance journalists have to meet a rather stiff set of criteria” (Coursey). There is an issue here because Cox believed her blogging career gave her the right to label herself as a journalist. Kyu Ho Youm states that, “Not every blogger can be a journalist entitled to the source protection. And some bloggers deserve protection if their work is similar to that of mainstream media professionals.” I agree in the fact that Youm is stating that the blogging has a very broad range itself. To categorize it all into journalism would cause chaos. The New York Times’ guidelines state, “If a staff member publishes a personal Web page or blog on a site outside our company's control, the staff member has a duty to make sure that the content is purely that: personal. Staff members who write blogs should generally avoid topics they cover professionally; failure to do so would invite a confusion of roles” (Rector). There needs to be a better definition as to what a journalist is and what a blogger is. I can be considered a blogger if I sign up my own website and update it time to time, but I would not call myself a journalist. Journalists are usually hired and they do their work for a purpose. Some journalists aren’t hired and struggle but you can’t say that they’d love to get paid for their writing. Same could be said for bloggers, but some do it on their free time and use it as a way to advocate. Saying this, there is no boundary that could keep a blogger from truly becoming a journalist. I believe that blogs are more opinionated and can be more helpful during debates or controversial topics. Journalists try to disseminate information, but they must do it professionally. Bloggers as of now, should not be covered by the Shield Laws. I would argue that they deserve their own set of laws if anything. This generation we live in has completely changed to way we put out and retrieve information, so a new and precise definition must be figured out soon.
ReplyDeleteRector, Kevin. http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4522
Youm, Kyu Ho. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law
Coursey, David. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/03/29/are-bloggers-really-journalists-not-if-they-ask-for-money/
With various mediums provided by the internet, information is literally at the tip of our fingertips. However, these mediums come with many different interpretations of the news, and I think that these interpretations distinguish professional journalists from bloggers. Where journalists are more likely to be objective and informative on topics they are writing about, bloggers are more susceptible to being biased towards their own personal beliefs. As a group, I don’t believe that bloggers should be protected by shield laws, since blogs are basically an informal medium for media and information.
ReplyDeleteKyu Ho Youm comments on the NY Times article regarding the Crystal Cox case and gives guidelines that should be followed if shield laws were extended to bloggers, and I agree with his terms. He states, “…judges should scrutinize: [1]Whether the blogger’s stated purpose centered on news-gathering and dissemination; [2]Whether news-gathering and editorial decision-making processes were regularly employed; and [3]Whether the end product of the blogger’s work was sufficiently important within the context of public interest ;Otherwise, the privilege would be too broad to serve worthy bloggers in a meaningful way”. If bloggers were considered to have the same status as journalists, I think that in considering shield laws, these definitions should apply. As it is now, I personally feel that journalists have more credential when they are working for a company full time, compared to a blogger who may only contribute an hour or so of their time to telling a story and giving information.
Crystal Cox’s devotion to her topic could be compared to the interest a professional journalist would take in exploiting their sources and topics, but even the judge considered her actions to be “unorthodox”. Considering that Cox was a “self-proclaimed investigative blogger”, I don’t think that bloggers should be protected by shield laws unless they are backed by a company like the New York Times or Fox News. Shellee Hale’s case is very similar to Crystal Cox’s, and the same question over bloggers and shield laws was a major point in the argument. Hale was denied protection under shield laws as well, but I think this is for the best. Anyone in this day and age could call themselves a blogger and put out whatever they want if they have a vendetta or a rivalry against someone else, and I believe that the exclusivity of shield law protection for only professional journalists and bloggers ensures some sort of ethical behavior in the media.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/judge-clarifies-that-bloggers-can-be-journalists-just-not-one-in-particular/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
http://www.blogher.com/are-bloggers-journalists-and-should-they-get-use-shield-laws?page=0,0
The whole question about whether a blogger should be considered a journalist is a little ridiculous after reviewing the Crystal Cox incident. A journalist is someone that searches for the truth in everything they write/talk about and breakdown stories in order to make it clearer to the public in a concerned and passionate type of attitude that is considerate to them as well. If a blogger doesn’t fit in any of that then a “journalist” shouldn’t have that title as well. Unfortunately, today in society People tend to focus more on the medium rather than how credible the source actually is. “A journalist, meaning one who practices journalism, is simply one who collects and edits news for presentation through the media. Is a TV reporter less a journalist than a newspaper one? Is an investigator writing for a magazine a superior reporter to one working in radio? Journalism already involves many different type of media. A blogger working for the New York Times, is no less a journalist than one writing for the print edition, the question is not a matter of the medium one chooses.” The truth is there are many different types of journalist and the case shouldn’t be concentrated around where the information is coming from but rather on how passionate and serious they are about the issue they are discussing.
ReplyDeleteWhen people question whether a blogger is a journalist that ultimately questions there set of skills. In reality bloggers have a specific set of skills that equally fall under the journalistic standard America so descriptively and carefully defines. “In short, both O’Dell and Martin see journalists as technicians practicing a certain skill-set with precision. However, as Martin has acknowledged, bloggers often do pretty much the same thing.” A short conversation between O’Dell and Martin revolved around bloggers participating in the same routines and desired preferred approaches as a news reporter or magazine writer. It’s wrong that the popularity and significance of a writer is what heavily determines/acts as an asset towards determining whether or not they are considered more of a journalist.
Along with popularity, the court and government take into consideration this notion on how often information is presented to the public in order to add on to this definition of an “appropriately fitted journalist”. “Instead, the court focused on whether the website in question was actively engaged in the gathering and dissemination of information to the public.” I disagree completely because when you refer back to the definition of what skills a journalist needs no where does it say that it should be constantly consistent. A blogger could post a blog every month with outstanding information and statistics compared to a “journalist” presenting information every week; my question is would that make them any less passionate about what it is they write? If that would be the case bloggers should be considered more of a journalist compared to other higher organizations and companies because of how connected they are to the topic they are writing about backed up by the outstanding information that was distributed to the community online. All of this should ensure the same rights and laws journalist are protected by because if you go through each of the small credentials that are needed to fit the journalistic definition; bloggers are ultimately no different.
http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/08/18/blogging-vs-journalism-the-ongoing-debate/
http://performancing.com/are-bloggers-journalists-are-journalists-bloggers/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
"Because most laws were written before the Internet existed… they often refer to then-existing media -- newspapers, magazines and the like -- or simply to 'journalists,' without defining who is a journalist." A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people. After the Crystal Cox case many people have been arguing whether bloggers are journalists or not. My opinion on the issue is that I think it depends. When the definition of a journalist was made, it was made before they created the Internet. Just because the Internet, in general, cannot always be trusted does not mean that there aren’t sites out there that can be. I don’t think this law can decide which medium can be considered journalism or not. I do believe that there are bloggers out there that can be considered journalists. It is true that anyone can be a blogger but not everyone can become a paid blogger. Just as Kyu Ho Youm states, “Not every blogger can be a journalist entitled to the source protection. And some bloggers deserve protection if their work is similar to that of mainstream media professionals.” I think that if a blogger works for a company, they can be considered journalists. You must reach certain standards for someone to actually pay you to blog information. I believe if you are actually working for a company blogging about important issues you should be protected the same as a journalist because you have to have some sort of skill and background in writing to get that sort of job. If a blogger is backing their information and facts with real evidence, why should they not be considered a journalist? I do think there should be a standard, however. I don’t think it would be fair to journalists for an everyday blogger who doesn’t get paid to have the same protection shields that journalists do. Those bloggers that aren’t paid haven’t gone through all the schooling that journalists who work for newspapers or magazines have gone through. I think that if a blogger wants to be protected under those laws they should be getting paid and working for a company. Not all may have gone through schooling but they had to work for where they are now and had to be skilled in their writing. Alan Van states a good point, “The proof is in the product.” If an everyday blogger who is not paid is a good writer, then I think this blogger should work to be paid as one. Once that happens, then I think we can give this person the protection shields. Therefore I do believe bloggers can be considered journalists and be protected under certain laws but I do not believe every blogger has the right to be protected.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/12/why-we-should-stop-asking-whether-bloggers-are-journalists/249864/
http://newmediarockstars.com/2012/02/should-news-bloggers-be-considered-journalists/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law
As it stands now, I feel that there is a desperate need for a new, broader definition of what a journalist is. I feel this way for several reasons, but the biggest one from me stems from a quote from the NY times article; “The notion that bloggers have some lower standard of protection is wholly inconsistent with what the United States Supreme Court has recognized as a necessary marketplace of ideas, where one’s ability to communicate freely is not dependent on access to a printing press or broadcast equipment.” This essentially says that the main reason for the different levels of protection bloggers and journalists receive isn’t even justified by the court’s previous decision, and basically shows why what happened to Crystal Cox should not have happened at all. She was sued for including her opinions in her writing, something that almost any journalist can (and do) get away with, simply because the medium she did it was a blog. I think that cases like these need to be looked at more closely, as it seems Cox was judged at face value because the medium for her journalism was a blog. Blogs are a primary source of news for millions of people; they follow blogs that interest them and are relevant in their lives. It seems unfair for the supreme court to say someone who primarily posts news updates and the like with their opinion added aren’t journalists just because they’re bloggers. While I feel that Crystal Cox was treated unfairly, I can see why there are such controversies on who the shield laws journalists are given apply to exactly. Chris Pirillo writes “A blogger writes out of passion, out of an extreme interest for a particular topic. Should a blogger then be held to the same standards as the media? I don’t think so, necessarily.” He makes a good point , that bloggers write out of a passion for a topic, so obviously their view has a lot of potential to be biased in their opinions favor. I think it would be unfair to call someone who just starts up a blog and posts anything about any topic they feel a journalist when you think of people who put in years of hard work at a college and got a job at a reputable news outlet to become one. Clearly both sides of this argument hold water, but I think a reasonable compromise is to establish a more broad definition of who a journalist is, while somehow determining a reasonable news blog from an unreliable one.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
http://chris.pirillo.com/are-bloggers-journalists-are-blogs-new-journalism/
Webster defines new journalism (devised around the year 2006) as “ journalism that features the author's subjective responses to people and events and that often includes fictional techniques meant to illuminate and dramatize those responses”. Obviously very predominant, free speech (accentuation of the First Amendment) across the web has amplified; access to information and the ability to voice opinions has changed the world in which we live. However, what this era calls “bloggers”, is stirring colossal controversy on what the line of journalism definitively is. The increase of differential opinions across, for argument sake, the Twitter-sphere from any John Hancock is stretching thin the line of the role of journalists, and outdating the policies and integrities towards the legality of journalism. Recently revealed in the Courtney Cox case, District Court Judge Marco A. Hernandez states the seven-characteristics/ guidelines that have refocused to define this rather perplexing “label”. The guidelines state, “Education in journalism; Credentials or proof of affiliation with a recognized news entity; Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; Keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; Mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; Contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story” (Coursey, “You be the Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists?”) In regards to the Crystal Cox case, the synopsis of the drawn out debate relates primarily to a necessary renewal of the shield/statutory laws for the essentials of traditional journalists. “Whether the blogger’s stated purpose centered on news-gathering and dissemination; whether news-gathering and editorial decision-making processes were regularly employed; whether the end product of the blogger’s work was sufficiently important within the context of public interest” (Shepard), states a journalistic scholar from California State University. Cox used her blog for strict defamation towards a hated individual, and even went as far as ridiculing family members not involved within the case of the perceived “wrongdoings” on Mr. Padrick’s part; this is not investigative or following the code of ethics for journalism, aka, delving into both sides of the story. It was in fact an enraged estimation, with no real facts for backup; an attempt at terminating a reputation. Never the less, whereas many bloggers are more associated with writing pointless, opinionated garbage on obscure celebrity stories or recent, popular global events, a handful are honestly trying to portray their detailed and well-researched perspectives – hoping to aid those from ignorance – and do in fact deserve the entitlement of journalist. All in all, although tricky, something needs to be done to increase the understanding of what a journalist actually is, and make sure that those who are posting strictly for beneficial intentions will be protected, we don’t want another Cox case.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
Coursey, D. (2012) You Be The Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists?. Tech, [blog] 2nd January, Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/01/02/you-be-the-judge-are-bloggers-journalists
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/12/blogger-crystal-cox-is-no-journalist-must-pay-2-5m-in-damages-says-judge/
According to the internet, a journalist is defined as a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcasted on radio or television. This is a true definition of a journalist, but in reality, journalists do a lot more than just write down things. A lot of time and effort goes into all the things a journalist writes about. They also have to investigate, do tons of research, interview people and many more things. It is unfair to just define a journalist as one who just gathers information and reports it to the public because they do way more than just that. If a new definition of journalist were to come into place today, I think a more proper definition would be, “someone who does research to gathers information and write up something that can be seen by the world.”
ReplyDeleteI think that would be a more appropriate definition.
I think that bloggers and any other person who does research in order to find out things should be consider journalists. Their occupation might not be considered a journalist, but they still do everything a journalist does. I don’t think that someone needs to go to college to study how to be a journalist in order to actually become one. You can’t teach someone how to be a determined writer. People who post on blogs though, but are just giving their own opinions, should not be considered journalists because they don’t support their own ideas with evidence.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
Defining a journalist is interesting. I never gave much thought about who should or shouldn’t be considered a journalist I always figured if you wrote or covered some sort of news through any kind of outlet you can just give yourself that name. That being said, I imagined that of all the bloggers out there who report on news and cover their own stories would be considered a journalist. However, after reading about shield and protection laws I realized that being considered a journalist is more than a name, but has it’s privileges. Crystal Cox, a blogger sued for defamation, was ruled by Oregon as a person that is not covered by the shield laws of a journalist. The ruling was due to the fact that Cox did not belong to a “newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”
ReplyDeleteKyu Ho Youm agreed with the ruling of the court for Cox saying that she is a “self-proclaimed investigative blogger” not a journalist. Though he agrees with the court, as do I, he believes that the laws need to be updated because they were made before the Internet and the blogosphere came about. Another writer Ellyn Angelotti writes on the matter suggesting that journalism should not be about who you work for or where you work that defines whether you are truly a journalist but instead a set of standards that must be followed in order to be considered one. Kyu Ho Youm made a reference to scholar Jason Shepard and what he considered as standards for a blogger to be considered a journalist. The three standards are: “1.) whether the blogger’s stated purpose centered on news-gathering and dissemination;
2.) whether news-gathering and editorial decision-making processes were regularly employed; and
3.) whether the end product of the blogger’s work was sufficiently important within the context of public interest.”
If you have a blog and write up a whole opinionated post about a current news topic I think you are a blogger, not a journalist. However, if you do proper research and follow the same guidelines that any other journalist would have to abide by I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to be covered under the same category.
Work Cited
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law
Bloggers are crucial to the news formula. No one has to say that bloggers aren’t helpful to us as a news source. Furthermore, they are the most active people in the network. Why don’t we consider bloggers as journalists? The U.S. constitution was written before the internet was even a consideration. On the other hand, bloggers started the art of blogging once the generation of the internet began. According to Sager, “A similar analysis applies to shield laws, which protect journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources and other information. Because most laws were written before the Internet existed, they often refer to then-existing media -- newspapers, magazines and the like -- or simply to ““journalists,”” without defining who is a journalist.” Laws were written before we had the internet and because of that, we have to consider the bloggers as journalists. However, those people who changed the law for a specific benefit or a business purpose, considered bloggers as an opposition, because bloggers had taken their consumers via the internet blogs. But why don’t they think that bloggers have a talent to grab the readers’ attention? There was no other way for those people to fight the bloggers so they had to use the law against them. They had to create a new law that states bloggers are not considered journalists. Anyone can be a blogger and that’s right. However, not every blogger can be a good writer; meaning, if you are a good writer with a talent, why are you not considered a journalist? Not everyone has a talent, but most bloggers could write as good as journalists and maybe better than them. For example, some people might say, “but journalists had to study to be like that.” I don’t know about the rules here in the U.S. However, in the Middle East I saw actors became stars without studying acting at school. There were scientists to create helpful things to help people in this life and they did not attend school, such as Albert Einstein. Some Actors did the same thing, such as Tom Hanks. He didn’t complete his studies at Sacramento, because he wanted to join festive theater in Ohio. To sum up, all I want to say is if you have a talent it wouldn’t matter what we should call you, but it will matter what you are going to do to this world.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited:
Sager, Kelli L. “The Problem With Pre-Internet Laws” The New York Times. December 12, 201. Web. April 7, 2013.
Online bloggers have now started calling themselves “journalists,” a term that shouldn’t be used loosely. In realty the words “blogger” and “journalist” do not belong in the same sentence, unless they’re used in comparison. Both journalists and bloggers have a plethora of differences. First off, most online authors tend to be bias because their opinions are intertwined throughout their pieces. Dissimilarly, journalists keep their work professional and void of their own thoughts (http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/08/18/blogging-vs-journalism-the-ongoing-debate). Fortunately for them, journalists are also protected under the shield laws while bloggers are disclosed from them. These laws are what allow journalists to keep anonymous sources hidden from the public. Sager argues that bloggers’ “ability to communicate freely” is taken away because they don’t have protection laws (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws). Personally I don’t think bloggers should be protected under the shield laws or even be considered journalists because their writing isn’t their profession. Journalists write for a living and have attained certain credentials that bloggers have not. Unlike blog authors, journalists went through schooling to gain their title, drawing a line between the two (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/203077/n-j-judge-revives-blogger-vs-journalist-debate).
ReplyDeleteBlogging has become a big part in the media world in the 21st century. It has been linked with journalism, but not entirely said to be the same thing. “In the earliest days of blogging, even the best blogs incorporated a good deal of opinions and were relatively light on actual journalism” (thenextweb.com). The Internet is filled with a wide variety of articles and stories filled with opinions. There’s nothing wrong with opinions, but when reading articles in the newspaper, one can see how the writer or journalist is using just hard facts. The people writing articles in the papers went to school for this and know the right way to write an article. I’m not saying that bloggers aren’t as educated, but maybe just not in the field of journalism. Some blogs turn out to be more informative and more popular than others. But according to John Berman from ABC Nightline, “Good reporting is good reporting no matter if it can be found on a piece of paper or on a computer screen or a TV on a stone tablet” (thenextweb.com). In some ways, it shouldn’t really matter who is reporting the information. As long as it is reported in a way for everyone to understand and is pretty thorough, there should be no problem. According to Ellyn Angelotti in an article in the NY Times, a journalist “possesses a hunger to pursue the truth and share it in compelling ways”. That’s along the lines of what people are thinking when posting any story or photo. They are trying to inform people on certain topics and tell people what is going on in the world. According to a Federal Judge, there are seven requirements to be a journalist. “Education in journalism; Credentials or proof of affiliation with a recognized news entity; Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; Keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; Mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; Contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story” (Coursey). Seeing how the definition for journalism was created in 1987 before the Internet, it should be changed to incorporate bloggers too. Bloggers are a big part in today’s media and should be recognized. I’m not saying that they are like journalists, but just that they do some reporting or research to inform others. Journalists are credited more because it is their job to report and inform, and are paid to do so.
ReplyDeletehttp://thenextweb.com/us/2010/08/18/blogging-vs-journalism-the-ongoing-debate/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
Coursey, David. "You Be The Judge: Are Bloggers Journalists." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 02 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.
The above is Jeremy's post..
ReplyDeleteBlogs are a good way to stay up to date on current events and gain and share different perspectives and opinions on controversial issues. Web Loggers, or bloggers, have already broken several major stories, including those that led to the resignation of a Virginia congressman, a shake-up at CBS news over the "60 Minutes" Bush National Guard story, the firing of a CNN executive over remarks criticizing the U.S. military, and the White House granting Jeff Gannon inappropriate access to White House daily press briefings (Conyers). However, anyone with access to a computer can start a blog without accreditation or writing experience. By considering all bloggers journalists one is saying that anyone is a journalist the moment they open up their laptops and type their first blog post. I believe that this cheapens the whole concept of being a journalist, and takes away the credibility and prestige that comes along with the title. When a journalist reports a story a certain standard of ethics, quality, and passion is expected (Angelotti). These high standards earn them the rights to shield laws, which allow journalists to report a story to the best of their abilities without feeling they have to withhold facts for fear of being made to reveal their sources. While some bloggers can be considered journalists I do not believe that journalism and blogging are the same unless the definition of journalism is changed. Both deserve freedom of speech, but simply running a blog does not qualify a person to be protected by the law.
ReplyDeleteAngelotti, Ellyn. "A Broader Definition of 'Journalism'" New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web.
Conyers, John. "Bloggers Have Rights Too - CNET News." CNET News. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.
"Shield Laws in the United States." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 May 2013. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.
Bloggers are the independent journalists of today. That being said, I do believe that it may be harder for bloggers to be as believable as actually employed journalists. One of the characteristics the judge makes is proof of affiliation of a news entity. I do think this helps in credibility for the journalist’s sake, however I don’t think it should define whether a blogger is a journalist or not. The current definition of a journalist could just be used as a general definition of the journalist category, then, the genre of writers can be split into different sub-categories, each with a different set of characteristics. I do think bloggers can be a little bias, but at the same time they can be pretty intermediate on issues as well, which makes it tough to categorize bloggers as a whole. In Youm’s opinion piece, he says, “Not every blogger can be a journalist entitled to the source protection. And some bloggers deserve protection if their work is similar to that of mainstream media professionals.” I found this an interesting point because of the way he compares some bloggers to the mainstream media. I’m not sure if he was using the comparison to the professionalism of some bloggers compared to others, or if he meant it more in the way of publicity. In contrast, I agree with Ellyn Angelloti’s that the definition of journalist the judge used was narrow. She makes a point that some bloggers have become more trustworthy than some “mainstream media” which I also agree with. Overall, I still believe that the journalist category should be separated in to sub-categories with different characteristics. If someone wants to take a stab at getting the truth out there so be it, as Americans we get to choose where we get our news from.
ReplyDeleteI think that bloggers should be considered journalists by the law. I agree with the idea that they are often just as insightful and often seen as equally reputable sources of information, but I do think that there should be a standard for the writing in order for the individual “journalist” to be protected by law. I agree that not so much who the person writing is should make them a journalist, but that the way that the person is writing makes them a journalist and allows them to be protected (Angelotti). Anyone can publish any form of crap they wish day’s world because there are so many different outlets for communication. There are some misinformed-motley reporters with very little researching or writing skills who are given the protection they need simply because they earned a degree and are a part of station. They’re publishings may often be inaccurate and based off of rumor or hearsay. Relaying misinformation is not what the public wants or needs. With that said the same also goes for bloggers since there are some that are actively spewing ridiculousness based on minimal research and their own personal opinions and claiming them as truth. However, some of these people don’t have training in the field, but instead have a burning desire to relay the truth to any and all who care to take it in. If bloggers are giving the public the information that they want and need if they are actually “gathering and reporting information to disseminate to the public” then why shouldn’t they also be protected? The real problem with the debacle is the bredth of the spectrum of people that can fit into that definition. I agree that the law is entirely too old and should be revamped for today’s day and age (Sager). The progression of our world and its technology have long surpassed the tiny niche in which this issue was supposed to fit. I think that the law and definition should be changed, altered so that a journalists protection is dependent on his or her’s ability to actually conduct real research, rectify the validity of the information, present the information without a blatant bias, and retain a reputation filled with integrity. Times have changed and its about time that bloggers are also recognized as a force.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
FOR FRANCESCA
ReplyDeleteThe definition of a journalist directly focusses on the process and craft of news gathering. It is the process of observation and verification that should ideally provide context. However, it is also takes into consideration how someone obtains the information and if it was sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity and disseminating the information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic or other means. These entities can include radio/TV broadcast stations, network, cable system, or channel/programming services (Seward). In summary, journalist gather and report facts and opinions from expert source while, in contrast, bloggers have a greater tendency to offer opinion and analysis that links to news stories reported by mainstream media. According to the First Amendment, the rights of free speech and press do not and cannot depend on the medium through which information is exchanged(Youm). Although technically journalism is considered a profession, and anyone can write a blog, equal protection laws should still be given to both journalists and bloggers, but to an extent. As long as bloggers have a purpose center on news gathering and dissemination and their work is sufficiently important in reference to the context of pubic interest, they should be subjected to the same protective laws as journalists are.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/the-problem-with-pre-internet-laws
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/according-to-the-law