There was a case recently, can't remember if it was Federal or State, where the judge ruled that a blogger was a journalist for purposes of the courts. As far as the Constitution goes, it makes no distinctions -- free speech is free speech. Newspapers are better able to withstand assaults by other corporations thanks to retained counsel and deep pockets and the ability to last out the years and years of litigation. Individuals usually get crushed.

As events of the past couple of years have shown, "credentialism" doesn't mean squat as far as journalists go. The blogosphere is showing that expertise or knowledge in a given topic trumps credentials almost every time.

Are Bloggers journalists????

Not hardly!

They are not held up to the same standards as real journalist. Just go check out the blog site Powerline ( a real blog site) and read their stories and I think you will agree.

very interesting and certainly relevant Yensid, thanks! I think in terms of legal protections, yes, bloggers should be treated as journalists. But in the real world, they are journalists if they act like journalists, which many do but many more do not.

(Where's that fake blog site?) Got plenty of these "real blog" sites.

Yensid thanks for presenting this in a reasonable way. It's a valuable question that goes to the heart of what I have been pondering for many months. Many bloggers have already formed their conclusions.

I'd say, at first blush here, without going too in depth - some bloggers are journalists in the sense of doing their own work.

No one needs a degree in journalism to become a journalist, but it sure helps kick start that learning curve.

Most who blog/ write online are pundits with opinions and do not fit my definition of what a journalist is or the professionalism that is apparent more often than anyone anti-media ever cares to admit.

But I also cringe at many of the pieces published by newspaper columnists that do not seem to understand blogs. That also, due to poor writing, seem to dismiss blogs. These cringe-worthy columns seem to be written for other journalists rather than for a general readership.

That's always a mistake. It would be like writing a review for other reviewers.

Now I will not easily come back here to this post to comment because I know someone is going to go extreme here and over-generalize. I've said my piece. If I were to respond it would only be in defense of some wild accusatuion that someone throws. And therefore, that person would be far beyond a reasonable explanation anyway.

Viva la blogs!!!

Actually, an end note. Many people do not realize that when a newspaper fights for its right to access public records or fight for knowledge and access to behind-closed-door deals it is exercising the same rights as any member of the public. If a city hall clerk won't give up records meant to be public, well, that public includes every citizen. There aren't many who will fight directly to maintain free speech. And when media outlets do they are often viewed as "biased" toward whatever subject they are working on, rather than it being the principle of the thing, which it most often is.

On the flip side, some general rules of slander and libel apply to all members of the public.

- Temple Stark
--Casa Grande Dispatch
newspaper reporter

--Online writer / blogger @ my own site

-- Managing editor /moderator of Political State Report

Powerline was voted the best blog site of the year (2004).

Bloggin is a hobby, a pasttime. It's meant to be informative and fun.

Anyways, you know what the say about opinions....everybody has one!

Are journalists really journalists anymore? From what I've seen the quality of their reporting is certainly suspect. I know plenty of bloggers who have better writing skills, more thorough research and can tell a story better.

There are lots of bloggers who I'm sure could do fine in the mainstream media, but they prefer the immediacy and openness of the blog format. They may actually be the 'real' journalists because they are the ones who do journalism for the love of it, not just because they got a degree in it.

And speaking of degrees, a lot of the best journalists have degrees in some other area and then happen to use that knowledge in journalism. My observation is that a journalism degree is an awful lot like an education degree. It teaches you a lot about what journalism is and certain formulaic ways to perform journalism, but not much about how to actually write or do research or tell a story. I think this explains the wretched decline of spelling and grammar in printed journalism.

In my long and varied career I spent some time as a journalist. Does that mean that my blogs are more journalistic? I know I found journalism frustrating and tedious and fled into academia for 20 years as a result. Sadly I discovered that there are deadlines in academia as well, but at least they're farther apart.

Dave

I know a few Dave. A few.

I think they do, however, have some characteristics in common. Bloggers, for the most part, are sharing their own opinions on any given subject. Journalists are reporting on actual news events. They are generally limited to the facts.
That being said, bloggers are required to do homework in order to present an intelligent viewpoint. Just as journalists do.

Yensid, thanks for the interesting series of questions.

The issue you raise in this case might be more centered around Apple's concern over the breaking of employee confidentiality agreements. Journalists, in theory, are supposed to report news in an "unbiased" way. Commentators, (and pundits as was indicated) have more editorial license. However in this scenerio, if they are in deed employees and I doubt all 20 are, they probably signed a confidentiality agreement and non disclosure agreement that is legally binding. Especially as it pertains to "intellectual property". The question I am asking myself right now is, what evidence would the plaintiff have to believe that the "bloggers" were Apple employee's? My suspicion is that their identity may have leaked within Apple and a court order would be needed to validate persuit of the case to defend the terminations that would be forthcoming. To show that the bloggers were indeed Apple employees. I am not an attorney, but I suspect this may be what is going on here to discourage this activity in the future at Apple. (P.S. they would have the support of every corporation in the world by the way.)

Recall several months ago a flight attendent, was fired for blogging a photo of herself (in uniform) in an empty cabin in a very tame sexy pose.

That was enough to nail her. The uniform = brand. Tarnish brand in public, (not a crime by the way) and you find yourself fired under the grounds that you are using the company "brand" in an un authorized way. Of course it is up to management to make an issue out of it not the legal authories. The airline caught alot of heat from bloggers all over the web as a result, so from a PR perspecitve it had the potential of backfiring. I can't recall the outcome. Point is, more and more companies are getting aggresive with employees that attempt to damage their brand image publically, for whatever reason, intentionally or not!

1st amendment rights is probably not the real issue here. Violation of Apple's standards of business conduct, probably is and their right to persue action. Especially when management feels that the company has been materially damaged, under the law. The question really will be if the ISPs will be forced to disclose the information to the courts in order for Apple to persue their case? So in a sense is the ISP protected against divulging information like a newspaper may be protected against divulging sources? It will indeed be interesting to see what happens with this one !

Thanks for passing along the story. -- zzb

you only need ask yourself one question when it comes to whether a blogger is a journalist.

What are the consequences to a blogger if he/she reports a falsehood? Ask the same question of a journalist.

Now you know the difference.

Dan

Ps...also real journalist do not report for 'work' in their pajamas.

Of course, you might consider that there are also bloggers who hold degrees in English, Communications or Journalism, but for one reason or another are not working in the field. Perhaps the appropriate question is whether they are WORKING journalists or not.

I have a communications degree in broadcast journalism, along with a gazillion courses in English and Writing but unfortunately I was not successful in finding work in print or broadcast media. I am now over 40, and let's face it, just how realistic is it for me to consider a career in that field now? So, what am I supposed to do with all of my training? Let it go to waste? Languish away in a pink collar job and feel sorry for myself? NO! I blog. It's a great way to keep up my skills, and have a creative outlet...and YES, sometimes use the skills I learned in J-School. My blog is a combination of my romance poetry/short stories/essays and sometimes commentary on various current events...and yes, it DOES get read, and I get letters about it nearly every single day.

Frankly, I don't care of someone feels I am "legitimate" or not. I am doing what makes me happy and fulfilled and that is all that matters. I'm sure there are other bloggers out there who feel the same way. There's no need or reason for elitism in the blogosphere. I think there is room for all of us here.

Maybe one should ask if those "reporters" at FOX news are real with their so-called fair and unbiased reporting LOL.

According to my mother, I am legitimate. I write a daily journal, therefore I am (by definition) a journalist.

Ipso facto, I am a legitimate journalist.

>>According to my mother, I am legitimate.

Color me amused.

That's great news. What's the revelation that you're not a bastard got to do with anything.

:)

Sorry to tick you on a sore spot, Temple.

The key is in the last line, which you did not quote: Ipso facto, I am a legitimate journalist.

uuuuum - i was joking wit ya?

sore spot?

I should've said "struck me as funny"

Following the comments made by "Dan Rather", I visited the powerline blog and was deeply offended by its bile, hostility and, ultimately, stupid ignorance.

Now before the likes of Mr Olsen (still chuckling over that Ontology phrase, Eric) accuse me of wanting to censor people I disagree with, I don't.

But in a legalistic society like the USA, why has nobody sued Fox for its blatantly false and lying use of the phrase "fair and balanced journalism"?

There are certainly many blogs that deploy far more detached intelligence than Fox News or Powerline and try for honest reporting.

Journalism OUGHT to be the pursuit of what's happening out there, reported with as little bias as possible and free of prejudice, so that people can make up their own minds.

The moment ANY editorial platform strays from that position, journalism is no longer taking place.

The whole question of qualifications is just another red herring.

Sorry, Temple, that's the scorpion in me - hafta get the sting in first!

I think the blogger vs. employed-by-the-old-media face-off is the red herring. What's really being debated here is encapsulated in alienboy's plaint:

Journalism OUGHT to be the pursuit of what's happening out there, reported with as little bias as possible and free of prejudice, so that people can make up their own minds.

The moment ANY editorial platform strays from that position, journalism is no longer taking place.

what are your views on those questions Drpat.

Sabrina proves my point when she writes: Frankly, I don't care of someone feels I am "legitimate" or not.

Real journalist care what others thinks. Bloggers are bogus.

Perhaps caring less about what others think makes you more free to be honest?

Dave

Perhaps, but then again maybe it doesn't.

The definition in thesaurus.com says a journalist is one who keeps a journal. So DrPat is write. He's a journalist. Anybody using the name dan rather as a poster can't be believed anyway!

Semantics.

The real test to determine if your are a journalist or just a blogger is the paycheck. Are you getting paid to write (professional status) or is this something you do while you are at work getting paid to do something else (amatuer status).

One is a profession and one is a hobby. Can you tell the difference?