5 ms·

Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she i

Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't work for big traditional organizations like the NYT. Now the NYT, the employer of the author of this article, is, like many traditional media organizations, financially threatened by independent bloggers who have been gaining massive traction and readership over the last decade that draws away from traditional large media. The publisher and supporters of giant consolidated media are threatened by loss of consolidated points of media control which special interests can leverage. Completely independent journalists, including many bloggers, have been threatening the status quo for some time. Overreaching court rulings that only those working for corporate agencies are "legitimate" certainly serve the interests of those in power. Whether the independent journalist/blogger in question was guilty of defamation didn't require such a finding about their status as a journalist so the decision is certainly overreaching. On the issue of the Oregon Shield Law, the judge certainly misrepresented it since by stating (exact quote from ORS 44.510) "'Medium of communication' has its ordinary meaning and includes, but is not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.", it says INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, in its definition of "Mediums of Communication". The definition of "medium of communication" is critical because in ORS 44.520 the law reads "No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by a legislative, executive or judicial officer or body, or any other authority having power to compel testimony or the production of evidence, to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise..." Not just employed by, but connected with or engaged in any medium of communication to the public. Any reasonable reading of this law will include independent journalists and bloggers. Full text of Oregon Shield law: http://www.orenews.com/web/legal/shieldslaw.php http://www.orenews.com/web/legal/shieldslaw.php

ChuckMcM 15y ago
If the NY Times has the right facts I'm wondering if the judge was trying to give Mr. Padrick some justice. Anyone know what Oregon's shield law has to say about magazines that are defamatory?
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  The shield law "do[es] not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information."
andylei 15y ago
how are shield laws relevant? shield laws protect journalists sources from subpoenas; they don't give blanket protection against defamation
- _delirium 15y ago
  That's the point, I think: the judge shouldn't have decided the question of whether the shield law applied to bloggers, because it wouldn't have provided a shield in this case anyway. edit: Though come to think of it, maybe the judge though that was the easier question (wrongly, imo), and so looked at it in the other direction: since we can decide that bloggers aren't journalists, we don't need to unnecessarily decide the question of what behavior the Oregon Shield Law shields.
- 2arrs2ells 15y ago
  "Oregon law provides special legal protections against defamation lawsuits to journalists associated with traditional media outlets. Such publications are immune from defamation suits unless the defamed individual first requests a retraction. Journalists at recognized media outlets are also protected from revealing confidential sources. Cox argued that she was eligible for protection under both provisions and asked the judge to set aside the verdict." From http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-blogger-not-eligible-for-oregon-media-shield-law.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-blogge...
jxcole 15y ago
This is probably the most telling bit of information: The provisions of ORS 44.520 (1) do not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information. [1973 c.22 ss.4,5; 1979 c.820 s.2] So the case could have been won even if she had been ruled a "journalist". This is the problem with the ruling.
andylei 15y ago
she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack 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." (2) is maybe questionable; but (3), (4), and (7) are legitimate reasons.
- msg 15y ago
  3 and 7 disqualify many fair and balanced "journalism" organizations as well. Accept that the judge was BSing and this part of the decision makes much more sense.
  - tvon 15y ago
    You don't need to be all those things, just some.
    - msg 15y ago
      (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; (7) contacting 'the other side' to get both sides of a story. I don't buy any of these at all. #1 and #2 say that you need a piece of paper to be a journalist. It's not true, as you can see from independent bloggers in eg Arab states covering the various revolutions. #3 through 5 says that you need to have "standards" to be a journalist. Again there is no one to bell the cat. If your rush expose has numerous misspellings, do you lose your status? How closely must you check your facts? How much conflict of interest must you disclose? "Disclosure: the author loves Apple products." Similarly for keeping notes and being up front with your sources. If you don't do it we might call what you're doing "bad journalism". But it's not "not journalism". #6 says that aggregators are not journalists. To a degree I think this is true; see below. #7 says that unless you provide fair views or equal time, you're not a journalist. I put this together with #3 to #5. As a thought exercise, see which of your favorite journalism organizations pass the filter on any given day. Now that that's out of the way, what is journalism? It's broadcasting an eyewitness account, or original ideas derived from an eyewitness account, to the public. And that's it. This is why I might exclude aggregators who don't add independent content. Freedom of the press means freedom to publish and be read without censorship. We are all publishing all the time. This doesn't mean that we need to somehow narrow the field of journalism to exclude the unwashed masses, as this judge's opinion strains to do. We might need to specify the definition of "journalistic activity" if we need to carve out special protections.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

If the NY Times has the right facts I'm wondering if the judge was trying to give Mr. Padrick some justice. Anyone know what Oregon's shield law has to say about magazines that are defamatory?

RyanMcGreal 15y ago
The shield law "do[es] not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information."

andylei 15y ago

how are shield laws relevant? shield laws protect journalists sources from subpoenas; they don't give blanket protection against defamation

_delirium 15y ago
That's the point, I think: the judge shouldn't have decided the question of whether the shield law applied to bloggers, because it wouldn't have provided a shield in this case anyway. edit: Though come to think of it, maybe the judge though that was the easier question (wrongly, imo), and so looked at it in the other direction: since we can decide that bloggers aren't journalists, we don't need to unnecessarily decide the question of what behavior the Oregon Shield Law shields.
2arrs2ells 15y ago
"Oregon law provides special legal protections against defamation lawsuits to journalists associated with traditional media outlets. Such publications are immune from defamation suits unless the defamed individual first requests a retraction. Journalists at recognized media outlets are also protected from revealing confidential sources. Cox argued that she was eligible for protection under both provisions and asked the judge to set aside the verdict." From http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-blogger-not-eligible-for-oregon-media-shield-law.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-blogge...

jxcole 15y ago

This is probably the most telling bit of information: The provisions of ORS 44.520 (1) do not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information. [1973 c.22 ss.4,5; 1979 c.820 s.2] So the case could have been won even if she had been ruled a "journalist". This is the problem with the ruling.

andylei 15y ago

she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack 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." (2) is maybe questionable; but (3), (4), and (7) are legitimate reasons.

msg 15y ago
3 and 7 disqualify many fair and balanced "journalism" organizations as well. Accept that the judge was BSing and this part of the decision makes much more sense.
- tvon 15y ago
  You don't need to be all those things, just some.
  - msg 15y ago
    (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; (7) contacting 'the other side' to get both sides of a story. I don't buy any of these at all. #1 and #2 say that you need a piece of paper to be a journalist. It's not true, as you can see from independent bloggers in eg Arab states covering the various revolutions. #3 through 5 says that you need to have "standards" to be a journalist. Again there is no one to bell the cat. If your rush expose has numerous misspellings, do you lose your status? How closely must you check your facts? How much conflict of interest must you disclose? "Disclosure: the author loves Apple products." Similarly for keeping notes and being up front with your sources. If you don't do it we might call what you're doing "bad journalism". But it's not "not journalism". #6 says that aggregators are not journalists. To a degree I think this is true; see below. #7 says that unless you provide fair views or equal time, you're not a journalist. I put this together with #3 to #5. As a thought exercise, see which of your favorite journalism organizations pass the filter on any given day. Now that that's out of the way, what is journalism? It's broadcasting an eyewitness account, or original ideas derived from an eyewitness account, to the public. And that's it. This is why I might exclude aggregators who don't add independent content. Freedom of the press means freedom to publish and be read without censorship. We are all publishing all the time. This doesn't mean that we need to somehow narrow the field of journalism to exclude the unwashed masses, as this judge's opinion strains to do. We might need to specify the definition of "journalistic activity" if we need to carve out special protections.