« de.lay.ed on del.icio.us no more... | Main | My Son the Spam Copywriter... »

March 10, 2005

Blurnalism - Is Blogging Journalism?

So Joe C. sent over an interesting story last night about bloggers versus journalists.

Are Bloggers Journalists?
A California judge issued a preliminary ruling on Mar. 3 that three bloggers who published leaked information about an unreleased Apple (NasdaqNM:AAPL - News) product must divulge their confidential sources.
If the ruling holds, it will set a precedent certain to reverberate through the blogosphere because this means under the law *bloggers aren't considered journalists.*

For more on the story...

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/050308/tc20050377877_tc024_1.html

This story boils down to some interesting pieces. Apple, or any company, has a right to protect trade secrets. They hold their employees contractually to such. Purportedly, an employee or insider, released this information. Apple will force the "journalist" protection issue so they can find out where their leak is.

It makes me wonder - would a "real" journalist have run this information? Part of being a journalist seems to be having a pretty core understanding of the fuzzy protection surrounding the professions - especially the protection around not revealing source. Even still, it seems to me that a "real" journalist would probably stay away from releasing corporate trade secret in the news.

So, to the question, "Are bloggers journalists?", I don't think so. Clearly ALL bloggers are not journalists. Additionaly it is probably true that MOST bloggers are not journalists. Certainly however, it can be true that SOME bloggers ARE journalists.

I blog therefore I'm a journalist just doesn't hold up for me. E.g. just because someone decides to practice any particular skill, whether it be writing, medicine, art, law, doesn't mean they qualify for our automatically are bestowed with all the benefits and/or protections that come with the corresponding profession.

If a guy cuts his leg open at home to get a splinter out, that doesn't make him a doctor. He can't go write a presecription.

"Journalists" do have industry and self regulating "oaths" etc... that make up the fabric of "the profession". Don't they?

Still, the article raises many interesting questions. Apple asserts the people who run these sites aren't "legitimate members of the press." and therefore it has the right to subpoena information that will reveal which Apple employees are violating their confidentiality agreements. In most cases, journalists are protected under the First Amendment and don't have to reveal their sources.

So what makes a journalist? Publishing something that is public? Read by any other natural person? Has a publication frequency? Carries advertising? Is done for pay?

What about independent recognition? The story mentions how in "2004, bloggers for the first time received press passes to cover the conventions during the Presidential elections. They have broken major news stories. Several prominent bloggers have become media pundits. And mainstream media outfits, including BusinessWeek Online, are developing blogs to complement their traditional outlets."

Personally, as a blogger I've never felt like a journalist. I posted last year on a similar story, Bloggers don't do it for the Money.

Maybe Blogging becomes Blournalism a bit when someone starts to attempt to make money on it. Probably not journalism however, until they obtain or achieve the legitimate credentials that come with the profession.

Posted by gcrgcr at March 10, 2005 8:26 AM

Comments

I'll just paste in some of the reply that I sent off to Joe, with the note that it sounds like we've got some great conversations in the works when you guys head out east next week. :)

###
Yeah, that's an interesting and scary one, especially when you consider that there's also some question as to whether *journalists* will be considered journalists -- the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has a bunch of good information up: http://www.rcfp.org

It's a tough one for me, though, because while the current situation is frightening, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the idea of "shield laws," either. I have a bit of a knee-jerk sneer reaction to phrases like "citizen journalist," but there�s something valid at the core: we're now in a world where many of the practical barriers to researching, producing, and distributing information are falling, and it's a tricky thing to say who is or isn�t a journalist [who merits the right to protect their sources].

To provide shield laws that offer meaningful legal protection for journalists we first have to draw a little circle around them, and in an era where "journalists" may have day jobs at the car wash...well, again, that's tricky. Then at the same time, I don't really like the other extreme of saying that anybody who publishes anything, anywhere, for public consumption need never disclose their sources.
###

Posted by: whit at March 10, 2005 9:01 AM

Post a comment