If we are all journalists, should we all be protected?
The bloggers vs. journalists debate may seem like something that’s of interest only to media-industry insiders, but it has very real implications for society when it comes to protecting freedom of information, as the case of blogger Crystal Cox has highlighted this week. We’ve written before about the “democracy of distribution” that new media tools like blogs and social networks have created, and how they allow anyone with a smartphone or Twitter account to become a journalist — whether they think of themselves as one or not. Cox’s case reinforces that some governments continue to lag behind in adapting to this transformation.
Cox, who describes herself as an “investigative blogger,” is a financial-industry whistleblower who writes about allegations of wrongdoing and malfeasance by banking and finance players. In January, one of the targets of her blog posts — an investment firm called Obsidian Finance Group and its founder Kevin Padrick — sued her, alleging she defamed them. Cox argued she and the source she relied on for her posts should be covered by laws designed to protect journalists, but an Oregon judge ruled she was not entitled to this protection because she was not affiliated with a traditional media entity. His ruling said in part that:
…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.
Who is entitled to coverage by a shield law?
There are so-called journalist “shield laws” in about 40 different states, but some have been updated to include cover newer forms of media such as blogs, and others haven’t. For example, a lawyer in Washington state who is an expert in free speech and media law — and who helped draft the state’s shield law in 2006 — said Cox would have been covered by Washington’s law, which refers to any “entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any means.”
The Washington lawyer, Bruce Johnson, said the state’s law (which was passed in 2007) was rewritten in the wake of a federal case involving a blogger who was sued by Apple for revealing secrets. In that case, the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that Jason O’Grady — who ran an Apple blog called Power Page — was entitled to protection as a journalist, and that he didn’t have to reveal the names or identities of the sources he used for his reporting. In their decision, the appeals court judges said blogs were covered by California’s shield law, even though they weren’t specifically included:
Petitioners … like any newspaper or magazine, … operated enterprises whose raison d’etre was the dissemination of a particular kind of information to an interested readership… In no relevant respect do they appear to differ from a reporter or editor for a traditional business-oriented periodical who solicits or otherwise comes into possession of confidential internal information about a company.
Who decides what is “real” journalism?
Apple’s legal counsel tried to argue that the blogs it was going after (which included other sites such as Apple Insider as well as Power Page) weren’t real journalistic entities, but were simply involved in gossip and other non-journalistic pursuits. But the appeals court specifically rejected this line of argument, and in effect said journalism was a broad enough concept to cover a wide range of different versions:
We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes “legitimate journalis[m].” The Shield Law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish “legitimate” from “illegitimate” news.
The O’Grady ruling isn’t the only decision to broaden the concept of what journalism is. In a decision by the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit earlier this year involving a case, a judge ruled that a man who recorded a video of police beating a man in Boston was entitled to the same protection as the mainstream press. Judge Kermit Lipez said this protection arguably extended to any “citizen journalist” and not just to members of the traditional media, saying the availability of devices like smartphones “means that… news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper” and that such changes “make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”
Cox likely wouldn’t have been able to avoid the defamation decision — and its $2.5-million judgment — even if she had been covered by Oregon’s shield law. Traditional journalists are still open to prosecution for defamation, and the only way for Cox to defend herself would have been to prove her allegations were true (which would have meant revealing her source). But the court’s decision that freedom of the press protections only apply to journalists with traditional or mainstream entities seems out of step with rulings like the O’Grady case or the Lipez ruling, which suggests journalism — and the idea of who is a journalist — is a much broader concept than it has been in the past.
That has implications for more than just bloggers; it also affects how we see recent events like the “Occupy Wall Street” protests in New York City, Los Angeles and elsewhere, where the authorities tried to draw distinctions between traditional journalists and those without mainstream affiliations, so that they could control the message around those events. In some jurisdictions such as Quebec and Brazil, governments are considering laws that would license journalists, presumably for the same purpose. But those attempts seem more and more like King Canute-style attempts to hold back a rising tide.
Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Petteri Sulonen, Rosaura Ochoa and Yan Arief Purwanto
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.



Short answer? We’re not all journalists.
Longer answer… if the term covers everyone with a pulse it has no meaning. So we need to figure out a definition that not only includes certain people but also excludes some. I think the WA law is a good start on this… Someone who’s “entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any means.” should be considered a journalist (and I’d argue that ‘business’ in the above quote should be broadened to mean ‘activity’ so that we’re not bogged down by whether someone is doing it as a business or as an uncompensated activity.
By this definition, anyone can become a journalist, but it requires the regular practice of, well, journalistic activities. A one off blog post doesn’t do it, nor does a tweet here or there. But the “regular … practice of gathering and disseminating news or information” seems a reasonable bar. Whether that information is disseminated in a newspaper, on TV, on a blog, via Youtube or Twitter shouldn’t matter. It’s the activity that defines one… not the medium.
Thanks for the comment, Rick — and I agree it should be the activity that determines who is covered, not the medium or their affiliations. But the definition is clearly broader than most (especially mainstream journalists) would like to admit, I think.
Agreed. What I’m wary of is the “we’re all journalists now” meme that seems to be going around. Just because I have the tools available doesn’t mean I’m a member of the tribe. Useful definitions have negatives (who or what isn’t covered) as well as positives (who or what is).
Copyright covers anything that something-with-a-pulse produces, even mundane shopping lists or family snapshots. It isn’t just for the elite who produce legitimately published books. Seems to me, if you are willing to write a decent, informative contemporary essay or two, I think the term “journalist” starts to apply.
Not talking about copyright though. We’re talking about where the line is that makes someone a journalist (specifically for the purposes of shield laws, but really in general). I think the dividing line is that someone does journalism (as defined above) for a period of time (not just once or twice). Posting a few images and a blog post about, say, homelessness doesn’t make you a journalist. Regularly documenting issues around homelessness in your community does. Where’s the line? Dunno… I’d say that months or a year of doing this qualifies, 1 or 2 posts doesn’t so it’s somewhere in there.
Medium, though, doesn’t matter. WRiting those stories about homelessness for your own blog is just as much an act of journalism as is doing it for a printed newspaper.
The discussion of this case has suffered from a major misconception. Shield laws are generally intended to protect journalists (however defined) from prosecution or contempt citations for failing to reveal sources in criminal investigations. In some states, they cannot be used at all to block civil discovery in a libel case. And even where they can, your own lawyer is likely to be a serious impediment to claiming privilege because refusing to divulge a source may serious prejudice the case. Many traditional journalists have been forced by their employers to divulge sources in libel suits because the alternative was losing the case.
Thanks, Steve — that’s a good point.
Journalism is a trade, one that is learned through cadetships, training and study.
I just painted my bedroom at home, that does not qualify me to be a painter.
Even some so-called journobloggers like what you see on Techcrunch and the like are NOT Journalists, which is why we get such overblown, innacurate, non-fact checked ‘information’.
Should these people be protected… In my book, No.
Hear, hear. Real journalists (are supposed to) adhere to certain levels of ethics and professionalism. And as such are granted access to research tools the general public can’t. And for good reason.
Admittedly there is a decline in the objectiveness in much that passes for current journalism. But that doesn’t mean we should further lower the bar, or worse yet, throw it away.
Respect in journalism, as in everything else, is earned. The old fashioned way. It is not an automatic given to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater and then say you posted it on your blog and it’s okay because you are a “journalist”.
Tell us about these secret research tools that mere mortal cannot behold…
Objective? Always been a fantasy. People aren’t robots, they have points of view and opinions. What we should as for is fairness, accuracy, transparency. The myth of objective journalism is pernicious and needs to die.
So let’s just say, hypothetically, that I decide I want to defame somebody on my blog (I want to spread a lie about them) and I want to label myself as an “investigative blogger.” I write about it on my blog and the guy sues me and the law upholds the suit. I say “It’s true — I have a source for this information who I do not want to reveal. Because this was an act of journalism, I should be protected under the shield law.”
See the problem? I’m lying — I do not actually have a secret source. But I could hypothetically use the journalism shield law to suggest that I do have a factual source that I want to protect — and thus, I’d be using the shield law as a defense for my lie.
I completely agree in theory with the argument that we can benefit from citizens doing journalism and that it would be nice to have the strength of the numbers of people contributing constructively to the public sphere. But it is a one-sided argument to suggest that this hasn’t happened simply because “some governments continue to lag behind in adapting to this transformation.” There is also the very serious need to weed out misinformation, libel, etc… And while we want to expect news organizations to emphasize “objectivity” less, they also know that their missteps can get them sued if they’re not careful.
Basically, it’s one thing to see that there are some benefits of opening up the idea of what journalism might be in a very serious, legal sense. It’s quite another thing to acknowledge and grapple with the real problems this potentially raises. I see no such caution in the arguments to open up the idea what journalism can be.
Thanks for the comment — I agree that there are positives and negatives, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue more open journalism wherever possible. And in any case, it is happening whether we like it or not.
Changes in the media environment are happening whether we like it or not. But what is not necessarily changing are the court positions on who and what acts should be protected as “journalism.” The evidence (Nick Carr’s piece in NYT) that this blogger was deceptive sort of solidifies my point (before I knew it would play out like this) that we can be overzealous in assuming that any blogger deserves to be protected as journalists can be. We have to be much more cautious than you’re suggesting about who is entitled to the shield laws and other kinds of accountability measures afforded journalists.
I know of no attempts in Brazil to license journalists. The link only metions Quebec. From where did that come from?
Sorry about that — should have included a link. It’s a proposal in the Senate: http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/node/8284
thanks, hadn’t tought of that.
Ha ha, are journalists afraid from bloggers? Best part, bloggers don’t have to go through boring Mass Communication classes?
Can you imagine trying to prosecute a drug case or a murder case under the new rules? every potential witness will refuse to testify … claiming to be a journalist. I’ve got a computer! I tweet! I have a blog.
in reality, there has to be something more to being a journalist than owning a computer or writing a blog. i guess the courts will have to figure out what those things are, but let’s not pretend that Crystal Cox is a “journalist.”
Here are a few things to consider: her training, her experiences, her practices, her professional affiliations.
Why are her professional affiliations important? What you’re looking for are external markers… a business card that says she’s a member of a company, a degree, etc. But why are those things what makes a journalist rather than what they do and how regularly they do it?
Juste to say that there is no project of licensing journalism in Quebec. What some journalists are looking for is a voluntary professional statute. In a nutshell, the aim is to help the public to distinguish between journalists who accept to follow a Code of ethics and those who don’t.
The line between journalists and bloggers is only going to get greyer. This debate has been going on for years, but I still believe that many of the factors that we believe make someone a journalist versus a blogger are going to get much more muddled as time goes on. Journalism itself is definitely a learned trade, but it’s hard to discredit bloggers who do great reporting too.
A lot of people are blindly kidding themselves.
And it’s not just wannabe, pretend journalists.
If you’re waiting tables, but earn a small amount from acting as an extra in commercials… then you are a waiter, not an actor. Accept it.
If you are a secretary, but earn a few bucks as a promotional model… you, my dear, are a secretary.
If you are a lawyer, but own a Harley, you, my friend are a lawyer.
You are not an outlaw biker.
See the pattern here? Let’s try a couple more, just to make sure you have the hang of this.
If you’re an administrative clerk, but sell your landscape oil paintings at the annual art and craft fair, then you are an administrative clerk.
You might, really, really want to be these other things.
Everyone needs a dream.
But you need to know the difference between dreams and reality.
Unless your work pays the majority of your bills, then um, you need to accept that is not your occupation.
Having a video camera on your iphone, doesn’t make you an independent film-maker.
See how this works?
Changing the oil and spark plugs on your car doesn’t make you a “mechanic”.
Doesn’t matter how good a job you do on the spark plugs. It’s still amateur fiddling, even if you’ve done a really good job.
EXERCISE:
1) How might these examples relate to people who have blogs that make a few pennies, or twitter accounts that make nothing? Are they journalists?
NB If you’re still confused, here’s a tip. Bring your blogger/wordpress blog or twitter posts to a family barbecue and try telling them you’re a journalist now. Their reaction will steer you right.