Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judge Determines: Bloggers Aren't Journalists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judge Determines: Bloggers Aren't Journalists

    Crystal Cox, Oregon Blogger, Isn't a Journalist, Concludes U.S. Court--Imposes $2.5 Million Judgement on Her

    By Curtis Cartier Tue., Dec. 6 2011 at 6:00 AM Comments (156)
    Categories: Law & Courts, Media

    A U.S. District Court judge in Portland has drawn a line in the sand between "journalist" and "blogger." And for Crystal Cox, a woman on the latter end of that comparison, the distinction has cost her $2.5 million.

    Speaking to Seattle Weekly, Cox says that the judgement could have impacts on bloggers everywhere.

    "This should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet," she says.

    Cox runs several law-centric blogs, like industrywhistleblower.com, judicialhellhole.com, and obsidianfinancesucks.com, and was sued by investment firm Obsidian Finance Group in January for defamation, to the tune of $10 million, for writing several blog posts that were highly critical of the firm and its co-founder Kevin Padrick.

    Representing herself in court, Cox had argued that her writing was a mixture of facts, commentary and opinion (like a million other blogs on the web) and moved to have the case dismissed. Dismissed it wasn't, however, and after throwing out all but one of the blog posts cited by Obsidian Financial, the judge ruled that this single post was indeed defamatory because it was presented, essentially, as more factual in tone than her other posts, and therefore a reasonable person could conclude it was factual.

    The judge ruled against Cox on that post and awarded $2.5 million to the investment firm.

    Now here's where the case gets more important: Cox argued in court that the reason her post was more factual was because she had an inside source that was leaking her information. And since Oregon is one of 40 U.S. states including Washington with media shield laws, Cox refused to divulge who her source was.

    But without revealing her source Cox couldn't prove that the statements she'd made in her post were true and therefore not defamation, or attribute them to her source and transfer the liability.

    Oregon's media shield law reads:

    No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by ... a judicial officer ... to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise ... [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]

    The judge in Cox's case, however, ruled that the woman did not qualify for shield-law protection not because of anything she wrote, but because she wasn't employed by an official media establishment.

    From the opinion by U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez:

    . . . although defendant is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" and defines herself as "media," the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law

    Cox tells Seattle Weekly that she plans to appeal the ruling by proving her assertion that Obsidian co-founder Kevin Padrick is guilty of bankruptcy fraud--a statement that, as Cox is quite proud of, is abundantly advertised if one simply Googles Padrick's name and sees the dozens of Cox's posts that spring up about him.

    At this point Cox says that she still has no plans to get a lawyer.

    We think that's a bad idea.
    We got into a heavy discussion about this last year in one of my courses, if bloggers can be considered journalists or not. Turns out a judge made that determination and answered that question
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  • #2
    There is an old lawyers' saying that "a man who represents himself will have a fool for a client" and this could prove correct in this case.

    Comment


    • #3
      On the one hand, some bloggers have even a stronger work ethic than some journalists. On the other hand, bloggers are not held accountable to an ethics code or committee like journalists are. So the question is, how do you determine what qualifies someone as a journalist. This judge apparently thinks that having a fixed employer is it
      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

      Comment


      • #4
        The judge can't read. "...employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public..." The straightforward reading of the law would include bloggers.
        I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
          The judge can't read. "...employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public..." The straightforward reading of the law would include bloggers.

          But further down the statement is...

          "although defendant is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" and defines herself as "media," the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law"

          Comment


          • #6
            She rightfully intends to appeal the ruling. This ain't no final its more like a quarter-final

            What is the wisdom in being able to differentiate a journalist from a blogger ?

            Many times on WAB we quote blogs of people that are eminently qualified in their domain and can talk about the matters concerned with a great deal more clarity than a journalist that would have to be a jack of trades albeit in the narrow segment they report on.

            That is to say the reputation of the writer precedes whatever job title or hat they are wearing when they write the related report.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Dec 11,, 16:32.

            Comment


            • #7
              If you write a blog you might not be a "journalist".
              Start a "news site" in walalalastan with 1 empolyee (yourself) and it's sorted ;)
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #8
                Quote from my notes from the course last year:

                Limitations:
                Blogs are very subjective and portray a specific point of view, there is very little verification or cross checking.

                Advantages:
                Openly display their opinions and agenda
                Can be edited after the fact to correct mistakes
                Can be published almost immediately
                Wide range of perspectives
                Readers perceive all of the above as advantages.

                The blog as a business model and venture:
                Blogs are open to lawsuit and persecution for libel, intellectual property, journalistic integrity.
                While blogs quote news sources extensively and give credit, in many cases the reverse is not true.

                ================================================== ====================================

                Moreover, like I said, bloggers are not bound by ethics committees like journalists are. Take Israel, for example: Whoever wants to open a newspaper here MUST get a license from the government. Most people don't bother and the government doesn't really care, but in the odd case they do, they can use that as a tool to shut the newspaper down. That encourages newspapermen and journalists to toe the line, both in not pissing the government off too much, but also in the very basics, such as libel, fact checking, etc... Now, take a blogger. He needs no license to publish. He needs nothing from the government so he can criticize them and piss them off as much as he'd like. He is not a member of a profession wherein each organization and outlet has it's own ethics committee and board, as well as a national ethics board for the entire profession. He also doesn't have to worry about pressure from advertisers and other companies that they will switch their accounts to competitors. A blogger has very few operating costs and is therefore free to do almost whatever he wants. However, the blogger is also a lot easier to sue and has a lot less political and economical clout than even a mid-level reporter at any national level newspaper
                Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  That is to say the reputation of the writer precedes whatever job title or hat they are wearing when they write the related report.
                  Which is a mistake. Whatever text we read/see should be measured on the quality and merits of the text itself and the arguments within the text, not based on who wrote it. Some people here see Charles Krauthammer and love him, some people hate him. Others here see Fareed Zakaria and love him, while some hate him. That's fine, until you have people that accept what Charles of Fareed say as dogma, just because they wrote it, regardless of who or what is in the article
                  Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                  Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                    Blogs are open to lawsuit and persecution for libel, intellectual property, journalistic integrity.
                    This is the main point. The law is blind to the medium used, both journalists or bloggers are subject to the law.

                    Ethics commitees are overrated. Journalists work for commerical entities that have to attract attention if they want to sell their product. You might find many times they are looking for controversy for the purpose. At the same time they have to be more balanced hmm, what is the word maybe responsible because they have a bottom line to look after.

                    Again i want to know what is the purpose in defining a person as either a blogger or journalist. Is it so that remedies can be sought in case of infringement. That is a fallacye because as you've shown both bloggers & journalists are subject to the same law.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
                      But further down the statement is...

                      "although defendant is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" and defines herself as "media," the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law"
                      Okay, I take it back, the judge can read, he's just been living in a closet for the past 10 years, and is not aware of the existence of the freaking internet. That list does not cover sites like Gawker, Gizmodo, or Huffington Post. In what universe does "any medium of communication to the public" not include websites?
                      I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        Again i want to know what is the purpose in defining a person as either a blogger or journalist. Is it so that remedies can be sought in case of infringement. That is a fallacye because as you've shown both bloggers & journalists are subject to the same law.
                        The law sees them both as equal with regards to charging them, but like we just saw, they are not equal when it comes to protecting sources. Imagine if Deep Throat was meeting a blogger instead of a journalist?

                        Ethics committees may be overrated, but is specifically because of their bottom line that newspapers are more cautious, and ethics committees are a tool to encourage caution. If a journalist publishes obvious libel without even attempting to back up their claims, once the law is done with them the ethics boards will smack them down even further. A blogger can come out shooting and not care because he has no bottom line he needs to remain loyal to.
                        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                          The law sees them both as equal with regards to charging them, but like we just saw, they are not equal when it comes to protecting sources. Imagine if Deep Throat was meeting a blogger instead of a journalist?
                          Then the law needs to be updated or the district court judge has taken a very narrow view in which case an appeal to a higher court will further clarify.

                          Cannot see the rationale why a journalist is exceptional over a blogger just because the journalist is employed.

                          Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                          Ethics committees may be overrated, but is specifically because of their bottom line that newspapers are more cautious, and ethics committees are a tool to encourage caution. If a journalist publishes obvious libel without even attempting to back up their claims, once the law is done with them the ethics boards will smack them down even further. A blogger can come out shooting and not care because he has no bottom line he needs to remain loyal to.
                          Ethics committe comes third in the list of deterrents. The law comes first closely followed by the bottom line. You may get a more ethical reading from a journalist than perhaps a blogger, that is the only plus point.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If you don't like/trust the paper - you don't buy it.
                            If you don't like/trust the station (TV/Radio) - you press the button.
                            If you don't like/trust the website/blog - you don't visit it.

                            Can NY Times publish an article on false facts? Sure they can.
                            Will they get protected in a sense the damaged party not to file a case just because it's written by "journalists"? No they wont.

                            What is the big deal?

                            BTW if Kissinger had an opportunity to write a blog in the '80s I'd sure sub to his RSS feed ;)
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Because the chances of a worldwide newspaper like the NYT filing a story based solely on lies without a shred of truth in it are miniscule. Blogs, on the other hand, post crap like that all the time
                              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X