http://slate.msn.com/id/2115883/

Anyone using a derivative of the word "blog" should be "flogged". Use the Kings English and call it a "web log".

I loaded the article fine with the free account I signed up for last year.

I guess it comes to no surprise for me. The argument pressed in the L.A. Time is one of substance. Some of the confusion generated on this topic is that many of us are equaling 'freedom of press' with 'freedom of speech'.
Both offer strong legal basis allowing the free circulation of ideas, news etc., but there is basic distinction in what a journalist does and a blogger doesn't: receive press credentials.
In our society we have long established that professional activities are to be regulated according to principled guideline portecting the rights of the collective as well as personal and private entitities. Lawyers need to be accredited and BAR associations have oversight on the professional conduct etc. Nurses, Doctors and many others have to do the same. All of these profession are granted special exceptions to general rules of law, based on the nature of their work and the abiding to the principles, rules and guidelines set forth by their professional accrediation entities.
I am not acquainted with the process required to receive a 'press member accreditation' but I guess that the only way a blogger can invoke the right to 'free press' (and I mean this in the context discussed in the Apple vs. blogs litigation) is to subject himself to the same standards as a journalist and become accredited.

I believe the concept of 'press credentials' is a little more vague than you're describing. Unlike lawyers with the bar exam, a journalistic credential is a statement either by an organization that 'this person is a journalist working for us', and by the place that the journalist is going stating 'this person works for an organization we consider journalistic'. At the moment, for example, there's a person holding a White House press pass who's pretty much a 'blogger'.

The idea of a 'journalist' is a slippery one once you get outside the bounds of the definition. Because weblogs are such a relatively new phenomenon, the determination of who should be considered press and who shouldn't is still a little up in the air. I suppose one question that might be a useful one to ask is "What other organizations have considered this person/organization to be journalistic?" For example, if Apple has invited or allowed people from Think Secret to attend press conferences and taken questions from them, that would show that Apple considers Think Secret to be journalistic. The more organizations that treat a person as a journalist, the more likely they are to really be one.

At least, that's my view. There are some professional organizations out there for journalists, and I suppose you could appeal to those for a 'real definition', but I personally prefer the looser one above.

Jason

"In his piece, reporter David Shaw took the position that shield laws were meant for experienced
journalists following standard journalistic practices, with traditional editorial controls and filters."

The ruling for Apple had nothing to do with shield laws. It was about leaking a trade secret, and the judge specifically avoided the question of whether or not web log owners counted as "real" journalists. David Shaw only wants web logs to go unprotected so that the LA Times loses some rather threatening competition.

"Journalist" is only partly what one considers one's self; it's also a matter of public perception. That includes the subjective judgement of folks you can't, won't and possibly shouldn't ever meet. And these days, it has less and less to do with credentials, and everything to do with consistent behavior.

Blogging is simply writing. Bloggers enjoy license to freely mix fact and opinion, logic and spin, technical and creative, for purposes of SELF expression. No Problem. I like it. But that's not journalism.

Journalism as a profession is about complete committment to convey facts to a public considered intelligent and worthy of the TRUTH. Excellent schools nation wide attempt to teach the skills filtering fact from opinion. Of using style and semantics to convey immediacy and impact without bias. Superior journalists have a right to be proud of the recognition, but like the true adepts in all walks of life, won't act prideful.

So are bloggers worthy of the title "Journalist?" Well, journalism is as journalism does. There are standards of integrity attached to the title even when it is not financially, politically or legally adventageous to openly recognize them.

In my <<editorial>> opinion, 99% of blogs aren't written well enough to earn the photons it takes to transmit them. .9% are a good read, objectivity notwithstanding. 0.09% are well enough respected to be considered "Journalistic."

The maxim "Don't believe everything you read" existed long before bloggers. And it referred to newspapers and magazines - just the places David Shaw implies are infallible because of editing... I know I don't read one of our major newspapers here because it is full of so many mistruths. Traditional journalists have long been stretching and distorting the truth. Afterall, that's what sells.

Bloggers are as much journalists as anyone else. Many are opinion based and so are no different to the opinion journalists in newspapers.

The only real difference between bloggers and traditional journalists is that the traditionalists usually have an editorial and legal team to vet any controversial material.

But just because bloggers don't do this, doesn't make them any less a journalist.

I have seen traditional mediums take whole articles from blog sites and publish them (with suitable credits). Does that then make the blogger a legitimate journalist???

Bloggers are simply freelance, self publishing journalists.

And as such, are finding that they are bound by the same laws as other journalists, such as those regarding revealing trade secrets.

The guy from the LA Times should now better. Being a journalist myself, and having studied the history of journalism at on of the top schools with a leading first amendment scholar, I know a bit about the history of how journalists become what they are.

If you have a printing press, you're a journalist. Camera, blog, TV station, whatever.

The idea of a free press is not that some "certified" professional is going to give you the facts and the rest won't. A free press is built on the idea that no one has a right to tell you you cannot communicate what you believe to others. Journalists, as we are reminded by lawyers every time we turn around, have "no special protection" simplly because we are journalists. So following that it's pretty simple. All citizens can be journalists. It would be unconstitutional to certify or license journalists. Period. So anyone can be one who wants to be.

But this debate completely misses the point. In the case of the Pentagon papers, which were taken from the RAND corporation by one of their employees illegally. But the right of the people to know that the US Government had lied about the reasons for going to war was more important than the fact that some documents were stolen from a private company. Therefore the New York Times, Washington Post and St. Louis Post-Dispatch were allowed to print them. Nixon lost.

Apple's trade secrets are not something that people have a right to know. There is no danger to their lives, or cost to them, for not knowing what Apple is bringing out - except for their competitors, and you won't get a court to agree they have a right to that information.

Again, that's different than Microsoft's trouble in Europe, where they use their secret information to damage the businesses of competitors. In that case, MS can be compelled to expose their IP to the world so that competitors can access MS Server services without violating their own licensing schemes (GPL, etc.).

So this debate completely misses the real issue of ThinkSecret and others. The problem is NOT if they are or aren't journalists. It's whether they have a right to publish this particular maetrial and if that right trumps Apple's right to protect trade secrets. The bottom line is, even journalists are going to be in trouble for doing what they did.

Is David Shaw a journalist or a pundit? If he's a pundit, able to mix "Fact fiction and opinion" at will, does that make him less deserving of written opinion?

He claims that Journalists are held to a "Higher Standard" than bloggers. Nonsense. If that were the case, The majority of people wouldn't believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 or that WMDs have been found in Iraq. Lies and truth wouldn't be reported without refutal nd with equal weight in a "He Said, She Said" format.

The fact is, bloggers have merely broken down the "Publishing" barrier to journalism. Bloggers have to be judged on the merits of their information, rather than hide behind the mantle of tradition and respectability like print journalists can. As bloggers become increasingly important in the revelation of facts, presenting pertinent and little-known information, and debunking falsehoods, I think people will increasingly see who exactly is more deserving of the term "Journalist".

Given the declining circulation of print media and Cable news, I think they're already starting to see it. Mr. Shaw's strikes me as someone trying more to protect his own "Turf" than to actually hold forth on a serious conversation.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Anyone using a derivative of the word "blog" should be "flogged". Use the Kings English and call it a "web log".

Is it "King's" English or "Kings" English? I am not trying to be a wise guy, just wondering if it is possesive or plural

Anyway "blog" is in the dictionary, at least one of them, it is now part of our vocabulary. Can we use the word "radar" without fear of flogging or do we have to say "Radio detection and ranging?"

Main Entry: blog Function: noun Definition: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log Example: Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author. Etymology: shortened form of Weblog Usage: blog, blogged, blogging v, blogger n

Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.5)Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

Where I come from, the definition of journalist is simple -it is anyone who contributes regularly to the production of a published journal, either in the employ of said journal, or with a reasonable expectation to receive an income, although any journalist has the right to work unpaid.

So a journalist can be a writer, a reporter, a photographer, an editor, a sub-editor, a fact-checker, a deputy editor, a pictorial editor, a columnist, an essayist, even - by definition - a blogger. Arguably, an on-air presenter is a journalist, too, but I prefer to think of them as puppets, or actors, or entertainers.

But what separates any journalist from the next is their dedication to professionalism and, despite what most people think, the vast majority of journalists do attempt to maintain their integrity through respecting the traditions of media - that being the intention to give an honest, unbiased account of an event or issue; notwithstanding the input from opinionists, who also form an important part in the matrix of the media industry.

Should it appear otherwise, consumers of media should be aware that it is unlikely the individuals should be held responsible for distortions of truth, as they are almost always in the employ of a commercial enterprise, which has its own agendas to push, and crosses to bear. Not to mention the influence of lawyers, who can do a lot (without malice) to change the nature of a story.

As far as press credentials go, the issuing of those credentials does not validate a person as a journalist. It merely confirms in the eyes of the person(s) or organisation providing the information for public consumption that the person with the credentials is before them for the purpose of pursuing journalistic practice.

The scrutineering of any individual/organisation applying for press confidentials does not follow any benchmark practice. Depending on the organisation, it may be as simple as entering a name into a database, while for others it may involve a background security check. The aerospace industry, for instance, is notoriously guarded and secretive.

But the White House credentialling (pardon the gerund) a blogger? Does that validate the blogger? No, of course not. I'll make book the press office just wanted to avoid a First Amendment fraccas.

But all of that is, of course, irrelevant. While the posters to this forum can argue until Armageddon comes that bloggers deserve protection, the argument is relevant only in its capacity to excite some opinion. The fact remains this is not an issue about freedom of speech. It's a question of theft. And credentialled, respected, trusted journalists of impeccable character and professional conduct are no more protected from theft of a trade secret than bloggers are.

And FWIW, I can't respect a blogger as a professional journalist. They may be writers, maybe even gifted writers. They may have oodles of integrity. Yet while their work may have value in and of itself, it has little use for an undiscerning readership, who may just accidentally take for a given a half-truth or even a lie concocted by a blogger to massage an ego.

Society has chosen to trust established media organisations because they know that more than one person is involved in the gathering and presentation of information.

That means, among other things, that where a reporter and a photographer attend an incident, there are two pairs of eyes and so more than one perspective. As the reporting of the incident is processed through the newspaper, the accuracy of the imformation is assessed, corrected and such things as the need to protect individuals (for whatever reason) is taken into account.

And there lies the magic word, people - accountability.

Bloggers are no more accountable for their actions than they were 100 years ago when with a sum of money they could find a printer and run off 1000 copies of whatever they had written. It was called vanity publishing. Such authors generally had little respect then, although of course there were exceptions. They have just as much respect in the modern context.

If it can't be proven using nothing but math, it's an opinion. Even eyewitness reports are interpretations limited by a single perspective and, as such, vary from person to person. It doesn't become objective just because it's written in the third person. The whole idea that ANY reporting can be impartial is silly. Nobody's interpretation can be entirely removed from their editorial perspective. If it's not pure math, it's hearsay. Is it any less hearsay because the writer gets a paycheck from a large company? To say that someone's rights should be defined by who writes their paycheck is ridiculous.

But remember, this didn't go to court because it's a first amendment issue: it has more in common with the fifth amendment. The public's welfare wasn't at issue and no laws were being broken by Apple, so disclosure of that information to these media outlets WAS a criminal act. Whether publishing the information was criminal or not is a gray area, but NOBODY has the 'right' to hide the criminal activity of others: not corporations, not bloggers, not 'real' journalists. They can only refuse to reveal information which might incriminate themselves. This leaves the matter for the court to decide, which is what it's busy doing.

Quote

AyaSofya wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Anyone using a derivative of the word "blog" should be "flogged". Use the Kings English and call it a "web log".

Is it "King's" English or "Kings" English? I am not trying to be a wise guy, just wondering if it is possesive or plural

It's possessive, thus: "The King's English" as in referring to the language of the kingdom and, of course, as well know, everything in a kingdom belongs to the king.

[python]Help! Help! I'm being repressed![/python]

I totally agree with you. At large, the litigation in question focuses on illegal activities. As in the other recent case pursued by Apple, against the individual distributing copies of Tiger, accountability is the center piece that should be discussed. Irrelevant of wheater one can call him/herself a journalist, there should never be a lapse in determining one's responsibilities in carrying out public functions (such as publishing/posting). Not surpisingly, an oversight in exercising such determinations carries the risk to be called to answer one's actions.
My introducing 'press credentials' as a possible discrimination between 'journalists' and others is not airtight but suggests my opinion that recognized 'press entities' are constructed to incite higher standards of integrity. If we lived in a perfect world we would all agree on such realities, but then our world is what it is and we have to contend with Fox News and the like!
So going back to my first post, I could say that for many good journalists there is always going to be a few bad ones, and so it will be for doctors, nurses, lawyers etc. We just have to exercise our good judgement and seek valid sources to obtain our information.

It is possessive referring to the British monarch.
At the present time I believe it should be the "Queen's English".

I agree with Coaten and a Guest above who believe that the point is missed.
It's a legal issue to do with the theft of trade secrets.

John C

The difference between bloggers and "journalists" is that bloggers aren't falling overthemselves to write articles to please their bean-counting masters and sell ads against.

Oh, and the process of getting "journalist creditials" includes calling up the press coordinator for whatever you want to cover and saying "hello, I'm (fake name) with (fake outlet), and I'll be needing a cred set for (whatever). I'll pick them up at will-call. Oh, and I'll have a photographer too, I don't know who I'll work with yet, so don't put a name on that one." That's it. Try it next time you don't want to pay to see something.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The difference between bloggers and "journalists" is that bloggers aren't falling overthemselves to write articles to please their bean-counting masters and sell ads against.

There's an element of truth in that, but in tarring all journalists with the same brush you risk diminishing your point of view with narrow-mindedness.

I wonder... if an ISP told a blogger that some kind of limitation was to be placed on them (ie storage space) if the blogger failed to write five kind words about their ISP in their blog, or perhaps place a link to that ISP's home page somewhere prominent in their blog, would the blogger relent?

Or would they hold their head high in that impenetrable fortress of blogdom ethics and move on to find another ISP?

Or perhaps they would compromise?

Hmmm.... I wonder.