This case raises a few questions. For instance, how do you define someone as a journalist in the internet age? Do you think of blogs as media? Has the internet made the extra protection that the media enjoys obsolete?
The case as presented in the article seems rather straight-forward that she wasn’t a journalist and that she presented no convincing evidence that she was. In fact, the article seems to indicate that she was an extortionist at heart. Without reading the whole transcript of the trial is would be hard to see otherwise.
I agree that she’s not the poster child for impartial truth.
Sorry I don’t have that, but here is a link to the ruling, I should have put it in the OP.
Here is the part of the opinion where blogger did not meet the judge’s standard of journalist:
I kind of agree with the judge. Just because I call myself a superhero doesn’t make me one. The rules on journalism will have to adapt to changing times, but not the way she is claiming. She wants all the privilege and none of the responsibility.
The fact that the judge listed an exhaustive variety of media outlets, yet scrupulously omitted any that implied an online presence makes his ruling suspect. It appears to me that he tailored his criteria to support a preconceived decision.
There’s a lot of case-specific stuff in the ruling:
The defendent claimed protection under Oregon law, but that law doesn’t include blogs as “media.”
She claimed to be covered under a shield law, which doesn’t cover civil suits.
She missed the deadline for filing another motion.
She didn’t quote court documents verbatim, but paraphrased them.
Her argument was already flawed before the judge even got around to the “not media” part.
I could argue that blogging is a form of journalism, but without things like editing, fact-checking and keeping notes, it’s so grossly negligent that it doesn’t deserve any protection.
Ah, no one can be a journalist who is not beholden to a wealthy publisher or their agents and minions. I see. The mainstream media is bought and paid for, that’s why bloggers can’t be journalist, I mean, who owns them? They might say anything … even the truth!
99.9% of people paid as journalists are not journalists so meh,
I can’t speak of the specifics of her defense, but the Supreme Court has upheld opinions are to be protected by the First Amendment. Was she presenting her blog posts as facts or news rather than an opinion.
I think most people would know enough that 99% of blogs are not news and merely reflect an opinion.
Read page nine. It’s a poorly written judgment, but his reasoning behind rejecting her status as a journalist is more encompassing:
It seems that she could be “media” just by being a television station or whatever; but since she isn’t, the ruling asks whether she still might be called a journalist and answers no, since she doesn’t follow any journalistic procedures. A fair enough point.
Honestly, it doesn’t strike me as a very well-written ruling, but IANAL.
Without making reference to a case that I haven’t read (other than its ruling), if you say, “Bob is defrauding Julie!”, for example, you can’t call that an opinion — it’s a factual statement.
Huh? Newspapers, magazines, periodicals, books, pamphlets, news services, wire services, news or feature syndicates, broadcast stations and networks, and cable television systems ALL have an online presence these days, however rudimentary. Indeed, it is hard to find any of the above that DON’T have some vestigial sort of online presence (whether authorized and operated by the originator or not).
yeah, i mean, pamphlets? so she would score points if she printed her blog out?
But they don’t need them. The judge obviously and blatantly lives in the past on this, assuming that you need to be associated with some sort of “higher power” to be called a journalist.
A journalist is anyone doing original reporting. That’s the only reasonable measure. At the end of the day, the judge is priveleging existing media companies and their employees over the rest of us.
Or like 99% of the bloggers out there, they might say whatever non-peer reviewed, misquoted, source-questionable bullshit that happens to be on their mind at the moment.
I still haven’t figured out why people think a news source is somehow more “credible” if it is being published on a web site maintained by some dude sitting around his mom’s basement in his underwear.
So where does Huffington Post fall in those criteria? Are they not journalists? Salon.com? DailyKos?
The judge is quoting the relevant law. And both the judge and the law say that “media” includes but isn’t limited to the items on the list.
Being associated with a “higher power” is just one of the several possible criteria the judge throws out as possible arguments the defendent could but didn’t use. The point the judge was that the defendent didn’t make any argument that she was a member of the “media”. “any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity” was just an example of something that would’ve helped prove that she was part of the media, the judge wasn’t saying it was necessary or sufficent.
But thats more or less the question was here, was the blogger doing “original reporting” or was she making shit up to slander the plantiff? She claimed she had a source for her info, but she refused to say who that person was and apparently failed to convince the judge they existed.
In my opinion, that is still being codified by court cases like this one. I don’t have a hard-and-fast answer. Just by my own lookout, I would call the outlets you mentioned “accumulators” of news (using and commenting on news originating from other sources) rather than “journalists” myself, but that’s just me. Newsvine, Disqus, Freerepublic, and other outlets do the same thing.
I don’t think you need to have a wealthy publisher behind you, but I think you need to have established your self as a journalist by reporting in a given outlet on some issue other then the one you were sued for defamation about to qualify for the protection. If you start a website Evil Captor Reports in your free time, and report on a bunch of financial issues and then report on a particular firms claimed corruption, I think your a journalist, even if your just doing it in your free time. And thus you should be held to the standard of a media outlet if that firm sues you for defamation.
But in this case, the woman started a site called obsidianfinancialsux.com, and it was about nothing other then her claims that Obsidian was breaking the law. In that case, I think I’m alright with her not being cosidered media. She wasn’t running a website that people turned to for news, she was running a website devoted to get one particular claim out there.
Otherwise, I don’t see how to distinguish between “media” and anyone anywhere making any sort of putatively factual claim.
I’ll have you know I’m usually in my pajamas when I update the blog I run! And I’m in a second story home office! And I own that home! And I have a five person staff! And I consider it an online magazine, not a blog! So I guess not the same thing at all!
Or why people on the SDMB think the answer to “Cite???” is to link to some teenager’s blog, and when you instead give a book-based cite or a cite in a professional journal which isn’t conveniently pirated on the web, they roll their eyes and declare it “invalid” since they can’t get their mom to drop them off at the library so they can look it up themselves.