The case of Crystal Cox, a
self-professed "investigative blogger" from Oregon , should outrage the public. The woman
was investigating targeted companies that she believed to be acting unethically
and found herself at the wrong end of a lawsuit.
The evidence she had
unearthed concerning a Pacific Northwest
finance group she was after and the sources she used seemed, in the end,
immaterial to the outcome of the lawsuit against her. I won't get into the
details of Cox's case since my concern is the definition of journalist, but you
can read more here." The judge, recent Obama appointee Marco
Hernandez, asserted that as a blogger with no other credentials, she was not a
journalist and was entitled to no protection.
Apparently, there are now
new qualifications for journalists. So who decides these qualifications?
Hernandez? Where did he get this from? I've never seen a laundry list in the U.S. that
precludes bloggers. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights, to wit: Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
In this instance, the
concept of the "press" means any dissemination of information through
a communications medium. In the past, this would be a flyer, pamphlet, or
newspaper. Now, it includes TV, radio, magazines, PDF files, and blogs. Just
because the media have modernized, it does not suddenly mean that the rules
have changed.
More importantly, when we
look at journalists' rights, there are no admissions whatsoever. You do not
need a license—like you do in most South American countries, for example—to be
a journalist. I'm not sure where Hernandez got his ideas from, but it seems
someone failed to emphasize the Constitution.
By his definition, all Cox
has to do is publish a pamphlet or write a book to be a journalist. The
defining difference between a pamphleteer and a blogger is, frankly, beyond my
grasp. How would a pamphlet containing the same information qualify her as a
journalist when the more modern and slick blog disqualifies her? Where's the
logic in that?
Taking away the mention of
the pamphlet, the rest of Hernandez's list implies that you need some sort of
blessing to be a journalist, and apparently an employee. Someone has to pay
you. Thus, you'd be at a newspaper or a syndicate. This logic flies in the face
of the Bill of Rights.
As far as I'm concerned, bloggers
can easily be considered journalists if they claim to be taking part in
journalistic endeavors. That means reporting. They can merely report the
current weather conditions, as far as anyone should be concerned. Publish the
report, "the weather in Berkeley
is nice today," and you are a journalist. You do not need training to do
this. You do not need a license or a degree. There are no hoops that you need
to jump through. No one will fine you for practicing journalism without a
license. This is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, not by the Columbia School
of Journalism.
That said, some knowledge of
libel and slander laws would be useful if you plan on writing about more than
the weather—and if you want to stay out of court.
Hopefully this un-American
precedent will be reversed shortly. Meanwhile, the public should be outraged.
Furthermore, for years, many writers have advocated for the idea that the Bill
of Rights is outdated in the modern era and that journalists per se should be
regulated. These people should be strongly rebuked. If we do not protect our
rights, we lose them.
Sounds really bad , But it happened to the woman.
ReplyDelete