Unless the gov't is somehow in the business of licensing and otherwise reviewing the conduct of 'journalists', they are in no position to decide who is or is not protected as such.

Although I'm not entirely sure how whether or not being a 'journalist' somehow protects one from spouting complete and total bullshiat.

Having an opinion doesn't make you a journalist. Everyone has opinions, much like everyone has assholes. Bloggers are assholes and journalists are usually assholes, but that doesn't make them equal parts asshole.

/and yes, agree with the Fox comment above, as well as basically most major news networks
//basically idiot bloggers with *just* enough personality to flamebait on TV.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Hey, if Fox can do it ...

Showed up for this, found it done in one. Leaving satisfied.

/hot

FTA:Cox, who acted as her own attorney in the case

What kind of a reta...



From her correspondence with Yahoo: A blogger is a journalist, or a reporting in my opinion, when they take interviews, get tips emailed, get and research documents, study cases and depositions, talk to those personally involved, and post their story just as a traditional reporter.

Oh... I guess the kind of journalist that doesn't proofread their writing or study "cases and depositions" involing slander and libel.

Judge is an asshat for disregarding the "not limited to" clause. Sounds like a very suspect reading; I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he has a personal stake in the matter.

That aside...

TFA: Because this case is a civil action for defamation, defendant cannot rely on the media shield law

... is complete hogwash. If any confidential source can be rooted out through a simple civil action, then the shield law is piss in the wind.

Methinks she refuses to name her source because the source was her attorney.

Despite Oregon's legal definition of "any medium of communication," Judge Marco A. Hernandez disagreed with Cox, saying that "although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed 'investigative blogger' and defines herself as 'media,' the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance."

So you're not allowed to be a self employed journalist in this country? When the hell did that happen?

White Rose Duelist: Methinks she refuses to name her source because the source was her attorney.

I would farking love a court transcript in which she claims to not have to answer a question due to client-attorney privilege.

Ya, sure come and get 2.5 million from me. Good luck with that.

Hey, if the NYT can do it ...

// Gotta be bipartisan here

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Hey, if Fox can do it ...

That's A Wrap

wmoonfox: Judge is an asshat for disregarding the "not limited to" clause. Sounds like a very suspect reading; I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he has a personal stake in the matter.

That aside...

TFA: Because this case is a civil action for defamation, defendant cannot rely on the media shield law

... is complete hogwash. If any confidential source can be rooted out through a simple civil action, then the shield law is piss in the wind.

1. She's not a journalist. If she's a journalist then so is whatever maniac maintains this (new window)

2. Oregon's Shield Law contains this:

44.530 Application of ORS 44.520. (1) ORS 44.520 applies regardless of whether a person has disclosed elsewhere any of the information or source thereof, or any of the related information.
(2) ORS 44.520 continues to apply in relation to any of the information, or source thereof, or any related information, even in the event of subsequent termination of a person's connection with, employment by or engagement in any medium of communication to the public.
(3) 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 §§4,5; 1979 c.820 §2]

If you have no basis for your claims other than some source, they need to know that source. Also, there are laws that protect the source in serious cases, because they take in to consideration if the person would come under physical danger from being revealed.

HotWingConspiracy: Despite Oregon's legal definition of "any medium of communication," Judge Marco A. Hernandez disagreed with Cox, saying that "although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed 'investigative blogger' and defines herself as 'media,' the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance."

So you're not allowed to be a self employed journalist in this country? When the hell did that happen?

This. If she were to print out her blog on newspaper every week and give it out around town I wonder if the judge would have said the same thing.

HotWingConspiracy: Despite Oregon's legal definition of "any medium of communication," Judge Marco A. Hernandez disagreed with Cox, saying that "although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed 'investigative blogger' and defines herself as 'media,' the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance."

So you're not allowed to be a self employed journalist in this country? When the hell did that happen?

From the reading of that court case, I'm not entirely sure where independent journalists reside in this definition of the law. It appears to be a really restrictive interpretation for even modern communication that are currently shielded. I'm sort of wondering if a journalist organization may get involved in this issue after this.

scottydoesntknow:
So you're not allowed to be a self employed journalist in this country? When the hell did that happen?

Well self-employed would imply you're making some sort of money for your work.

There are a lot of journalists I know who would disagree with that statement.

evilmrsock: White Rose Duelist: Methinks she refuses to name her source because the source was her attorney.

I would farking love a court transcript in which she claims to not have to answer a question due to client-attorney privilege.

+one internetz.
/ "Go big or go home."

scottydoesntknow: There are a lot of journalists I know who would disagree with that statement.

Are they blogging about it right now?

No, they have been interning the last 6 months to whoever will take their articles. After 6 months, they may get a job offer or they may not, but they certainly aren't making money.

skammie: [img172.imageshack.us image 160x276]

Understands his plight:



Also:

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Hey, if Fox can do it ...



Be seeing you, thread

I was going to mention that one step to become a "legit" journalist is to buy your own .com domain, but I see she already did that.

The second part is take that Blogger header off your site, you dumb lady. It looks unprofessional. That's why they're singling you out as "just a blog".

Had that not been there, the site would have looked like a legit site.

Doctor_TeethMD: 1. She's not a journalist.

As pointed out above, unless/until the US or State governments get into the business of licensing and regulating the press, the judicial system has no business deciding who is/is not a journalist. I highly suspect that this ruling will be thrown out on appeal.

Doctor_TeethMD: 2. Oregon's Shield Law contains this:

Then the shield law has no teeth. Anyone can sue for defamation and reveal confidential sources, opening them up for retaliation. That caveat completely guts the law.

pkellmey: scottydoesntknow: There are a lot of journalists I know who would disagree with that statement.

Are they blogging about it right now?

No, they have been interning the last 6 months to whoever will take their articles. After 6 months, they may get a job offer or they may not, but they certainly aren't making money.

Then they're not farking self employed are they? Interning, and working for another company, wether technically on the pay roll or not, precludes the self employment thing.

scottydoesntknow: Seems pretty delusional to call yourself a journalist just because you can write.

Seems an odd statement, considering that is precisely the definition...

jour·nal·ist
noun \-nə-list\
Definition of JOURNALIST
1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2
: a person who keeps a journal

Become a sports writer, problem solved. Rumors are swirling that the Bulls are close to for Dwight Howard.

/I dreamt of them so it must be true.

scottydoesntknow: So to open it up, anyone can write anything on their blog journalist website and it not be considered defamation or libel?

The 1st Amendment doesn't grant you the freedom to write whatever you want without consequence.

That's why there are libel laws. You do know that even journalists for prestigious institutions can be sued for defamation, if the information turns out to be untrue, correct?

kroonermanblack: Then they're not farking self employed are they? Interning, and working for another company, wether technically on the pay roll or not, precludes the self employment thing.

The discussion was on the point, "Well self-employed would imply you're making some sort of money for your work" and your reply is that even employment does not equal pay? I guess that is why so few people are journalists.

You know, I never tried doing F+C in Trial mode when Phoenix doesn't have all three correct pieces of evidence. Maybe this guy can tell me.

/And then maybe it can boot his ass down to Investigative mode.
//The one who committed the crime... was you!
///No alibi, no justice, no dreams, no hope!
////TAKE THIS!!