4 ms·

NJ Supreme Court Judge: "New media should not be confused with news media"

6 points by cwan 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago
It's hard to argue that a mere website comment equates to news reportage - but first, let's take a look at the weather. Seriously, I am not impressed with this author's argument, which goes so far to say that an individual can "simply set themselves up as a 'news organization'". This is an absurd position, akin to saying that talking as you walk down the street is like being a broadcaster because others can hear. He then goes on to say there should be federal shield law; a reasonable request on its face, but not if it's going to apply to every random posting on the internet. It's been cited in relation to the Gizmodo flap, but to be honest i can't see the relevance. I'm no lover of that blog but I do think they're journalists, just not very good ones.
- pmccool 17y ago
  Maybe, but it seems to follow from this judgement that you can write the exact same thing, with the same number of readers and the same impact on the public interest and get treated differently depending on whether you're part of a "news organization" or not. I don't follow the justification for that...
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    You don't have to be part of an existing media organization; there's a fundamental difference between publishing (eg by having your own blog) and just dumping it out there as a comment. With your own blog, you're staking out territory and making a claim to provide something - at least assuming you didn't set it up to disseminate this one thing, in which case it might be wiser to use wikileaks or somesuch. And then, there's a difference between just dumping stuff in public view and acting like an actual journalist by providing supplementary information, context and reaction from involved parties or expert commentators. I'm a big fan of using the internet for journalism, but to claim that title you've got to demonstrate a commitment to editorial standards and accuracy.
allenp 17y ago
I was interested in finding out more about this article there is a more detailed write up on law.com - http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432065544&Blogger_Sued_For_Defamation_Cant_Invoke_Shield_Law_Says_NJ_Judge http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432065544&Blog... I think this is where she went wrong: "Hale weighed in on the subject, accusing Too Much Media of engaging in fraud and "illegal and unethical use of technology," violating New Jersey's Identity Theft Protection Act and profiting from stolen e-mail addresses. She also said the company's principals "may threaten your life if you report any of the specifics." So first of all, she has a blog but that is not where her comments were - they were on a forum. Second, she is claiming this company is using click fraud to not pay its affiliates and saying they are stealing email addresses. I don't get how being a journalist would help her in this case. Maybe instead her defense should have been proving her accusations?

6 points by cwan 17y ago

It's hard to argue that a mere website comment equates to news reportage - but first, let's take a look at the weather. Seriously, I am not impressed with this author's argument, which goes so far to say that an individual can "simply set themselves up as a 'news organization'". This is an absurd position, akin to saying that talking as you walk down the street is like being a broadcaster because others can hear. He then goes on to say there should be federal shield law; a reasonable request on its face, but not if it's going to apply to every random posting on the internet. It's been cited in relation to the Gizmodo flap, but to be honest i can't see the relevance. I'm no lover of that blog but I do think they're journalists, just not very good ones.

pmccool 17y ago
Maybe, but it seems to follow from this judgement that you can write the exact same thing, with the same number of readers and the same impact on the public interest and get treated differently depending on whether you're part of a "news organization" or not. I don't follow the justification for that...
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  You don't have to be part of an existing media organization; there's a fundamental difference between publishing (eg by having your own blog) and just dumping it out there as a comment. With your own blog, you're staking out territory and making a claim to provide something - at least assuming you didn't set it up to disseminate this one thing, in which case it might be wiser to use wikileaks or somesuch. And then, there's a difference between just dumping stuff in public view and acting like an actual journalist by providing supplementary information, context and reaction from involved parties or expert commentators. I'm a big fan of using the internet for journalism, but to claim that title you've got to demonstrate a commitment to editorial standards and accuracy.

allenp 17y ago

I was interested in finding out more about this article there is a more detailed write up on law.com - http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432065544&Blogger_Sued_For_Defamation_Cant_Invoke_Shield_Law_Says_NJ_Judge http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432065544&Blog... I think this is where she went wrong: "Hale weighed in on the subject, accusing Too Much Media of engaging in fraud and "illegal and unethical use of technology," violating New Jersey's Identity Theft Protection Act and profiting from stolen e-mail addresses. She also said the company's principals "may threaten your life if you report any of the specifics." So first of all, she has a blog but that is not where her comments were - they were on a forum. Second, she is claiming this company is using click fraud to not pay its affiliates and saying they are stealing email addresses. I don't get how being a journalist would help her in this case. Maybe instead her defense should have been proving her accusations?