Bloggers are not journalists

[Magiver]

@Implicit

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?

It needs a further explanation of the criteria used by the court. The only statement posted was this:

“Based on the evidence presented at the time of trial, I conclude that plaintiffs are not public figures, defendant is not ‘media’ and the statements at issue were not made on an issue of public concern,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “Thus, there are not First Amendment implications.”

do all three parts have to exist to be considered a protected journalistic endeavor? I’d say that an issue of public concern by itself would cover a broad area of protected speech.

[Czarcasm]

@Una_Persson

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.

"My site is

[Pertinent Factoid]

from page 232 of Joseph Blowsef’s The Topic of This Debate.“- Good.
“Read Joseph Blowsef’s The Topic Of This Debate”. The answer is in there.”- Bad.

[Una_Persson]

@Czarcasm

“My site is from page 232 of Joseph Blowsef’s The Topic of This Debate.”- Good.
“Read Joseph Blowsef’s The Topic Of This Debate”. The answer is in there."- Bad.

I agree. Well, see what I posted as a cite in here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14611070&postcount=36

Gettleman, Jeffrey “F.B.I. to Investigate Reports of Lasers Beamed at Planes” New York Times 31 December, 2004: B6.

That may be expecting too much in many forums, but maybe in GQ at least that ought to be closer to the norm.

[smiling_bandit]

@Simplicio

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.

Slander and Libel should have no relation to journalism shield laws, and need have none. If irrelevant to the case, then it should never have been brought up. As it is, the ruling ventures into Obiter Dicta.

[brocks]

Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For
example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not “media.”

Does she work for Fox News?

[Grey_area]

I think the headline is a bit misleading and the misquoted version that serves as the OP’s title doubly so.
The judge didn’t rule that all bloggers are not journalists, just Cox. And given the circumstances of the case, not a mind blowing ruling.

It would be a more interesting discussion if Cox had been a genuine whistleblower.