Appeals Court Upholds Ruling That Blog Commenter Was Not A Journalist

from the too-bad dept

While lots of attention was paid to the claims that the confiscation of Gizmodo reporter Jason Chen's computer's would "settle" whether bloggers are considered journalists, the details in that case suggest otherwise. However, a much more important case on that particular question was decided late last week. It's the case of Shellee Hale, which we've covered in the past. Basically, Hale posted some information claiming a security breach at another company. She revealed this information as a comment on another site -- and when she was sued, the company demanded she reveal where she got that information from. She claimed that her sources were protected, as she was a journalist.

The court ruled against her, saying that because she had "no connection to any legitimate news publication," her own investigations weren't journalism. That's troubling for a variety of reasons, especially given the wide latitude in determining what constitutes a "legitimate news publication." Hale appealed, and unfortunately, the ruling last week from the appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling:

"Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media," wrote Superior Court Appellate Judge Anthony J. Parrillo.

The court also claimed that her activities were not journalism because they "exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity."

Again, this is problematic. In an age of participatory journalism, people who do journalism don't need "an established connection or affiliation with any news entity." They can easily establish one with various sites, or they can simply set themselves up as a "news organization" on their own. Furthermore, as technology has changed the whole process of journalism, there's an awful lot about journalism today that "exhibits none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process." That's because the news process is constantly changing -- such as its expansion into participatory efforts these days. This ruling is troubling in that it looks backwards, not forward. It's also a reminder that rather than various broken state laws that shield journalists, it really is time for a federal shield law to protect journalists.

Filed Under: bloggers, journalists, lawsuits, shellee hale

Could Gizmodo's iPhone Scoop Settle Whether Bloggers Count As Journalists?

from the book-em-danno dept

If you were anywhere near a techy site on the internet last week, you probably noticed the sensational story of how a prototype of a forthcoming iPhone got left behind in a Silicon Valley bar, and eventually ended up in the hands (and on the pages) of gadget site Gizmodo. Given Apple's history of cracking down on new product leaks, it wasn't too surprising to see the company ask for the phone back, nor to hear rumors that police were looking into the matter. However, it was a little surprising to read today that California police have seized computers and other gear from one of Gizmodo's editors, breaking down his door in the process. The COO of Gizmodo parent Gawker Media alleges that the search was illegal, as the editor is protected under California's shield law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources. Gawker founder Nick Denton says the case should let us find out if "bloggers count as journalists", but that's not completely clear. The shield law exists to protect unnamed sources, not to let journalists commit crimes (such as receiving stolen property) and then cover them up under the guise of their work. So while the case may not settle if bloggers are seen as journalists in the eyes of the law, it should settle once and for all that age-old question of whether or not an iPhone prototype left in a bar by an Apple employee constitutes stolen property.

Filed Under: bloggers, journalists, shield law
Companies: gawker

Sports Journalist Blames Fat, Cheeto-Eating Bloggers For The Decline Of His Trade

from the get-off-my-lawn dept

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was recently caught on video in an apparent state of inebriation using some pretty colorful language (via Barking Carnival) to describe former Cowboys coach Bill Parcells and NFL draft prospect Tim Tebow. The video, as you might imagine, became pretty popular, prompting Jones to clarify that he was having a "social moment", and when he says somebody "isn't worth a s**t", it's a "familiar, caring term of endearment". Lots of old media news outlets ran with the story as well, prompting quite a reaction from longtime Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen, who pilloried his own station for running the story:

That story we had earlier tonight about Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, if that's what it is (and our news director thinks it is), is yet another example of the decline of journalism as we once knew it. Our business now, too many times, is a fat kid in a T-shirt in his mother's basement, eating Cheetos and writing his blogs -- and we make it news. Jerry Jones in a bar, being Jerry Jones, is not news to me. And the fact that some creep slides up to Jones, records the conversation without Jones knowing, then tries to sell that recording -- and that becomes news -- is an embarrassment to us all."

Clearly Hansen is working on his entry for this year's Buzz Bissinger Award For Achievement In Grouchy Sports Journalism. He characterizes the decision to run the story by his station's news director as: "Public figures are fair game, and our game is reduced to following the lead of others." Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock decries this as yet another horrible example of "gotcha journalism", saying that it's no wonder athletes don't want to talk to the media when they run stories like this.

But isn't that the real crux of the issue? Many sports journalists appear to be afraid to do anything that might jeopardize their access to athletes and their teams, so they've supported the PR efforts to carefully craft the outside appearances of sports figures, and are largely hesitant to do anything to upset these appearances. Hansen calls this sort of story evidence of the decline of journalism, but it's really the result of sports journalism. Stories like this become popular and notable among the public because they're so out of character for anybody within professional sports. Other pieces have called Jones' behavior in the video "just Jerry being Jerry." And you know what? That's fine. The content of the video isn't even really that objectionable -- and perhaps has some interesting insight into the fact that Jones might have hired Parcell solely for PR value, something which seems to have gone unacknowledged among the mainstream media. But it's only these reporters, who have been let inside the magic curtain, that know that. The public at large sees the staged media persona of somebody like Jones, and then this video differs significantly from it, making it interesting.

Whitlock says sportswriters "owe Jerry Jones an apology and all sports fans an honest explanation of why athletes/celebrities have every right to avoid us." That makes it sound as if the goal of sports journalism is to be friends with athletes, to buy into, and to help build up, the carefully crafted, positive images of athletes -- not to cover the world of sports. That's what makes the downfall of somebody like Tiger Woods so sensational and so interesting to the public. But it seems reasonable to ask that given the intense media interest that follows someone like him around, why didn't the story of his escapades break sooner? It wasn't until the situation became irretrievably public -- like the Jones video -- that the mainstream media ran with it. These stories break in blogs because their writers aren't beholden to the same model, and often don't care about being so close to their subjects. Whitlock alleges that sports figures like Jones "can't be human." That's not the case at all; rather the mainstream media often doesn't make any effort to show them as human, making these rare moments where they're seen without their protective PR cover so dramatic, and so compelling.

Filed Under: bloggers, journalism, sports

More Bloggers Suing For Gov't Press Passes

from the this-may-not-end-well... dept

We recently wrote about how a lawsuit filed by three alternative publication reporters against NYC for denying them press passes to NY Police press conferences ended in a settlement with NY setting up new rules for getting press credentials. There was a fair amount of back and forth in the comments, with some still believing the lawsuit was sound, even though we had trouble with the idea that the lawsuit had any merit at all. However, it looks like that result may have inspired others as well. A blogger in Maryland is now suing the state for denying him a press pass. The article is long and detailed -- and it does sound (yet again) like the government should have issued the guy a press pass, but does that make the lawsuit sound?

Let's take an extreme example. I write for an "alternative publication," but if I requested a press pass from the White House, I would totally expect to get turned down. There is limited room in such press conferences, and the White House has every right to determine who gets that access. Same with the NYC police and the Maryland General Assembly. I agree that perhaps these gov't organizations should have a clear process and clear standards for who gets let in, but I can't see how it's a free speech violation to deny press credentials under these circumstances. They're not saying these people aren't press, or that they can't publish whatever they want. They're just saying they don't get to enter the building as press.

Filed Under: bloggers, press

Viacom Warns Bloggers: Post Clips Of The Daily Show And We'll Sue [Update: Or Not!]

from the fair-use? dept

Update: A comment from someone at Viacom says that The Hollywood Reporter got this story wrong. He correctly noted that we accidentally called their PR guy a lawyer (fixed), but now says that the quote is not about suing, even though that certainly seems to be the implication from the quote. Perhaps I'm missing something. However, Viacom now says:

We have always tried to be as permissive as possible when looking at what might be fair use, and we haven't changed our approach at all. Frankly, fair use works for us. I can't recall a time we've ever sued a blogger for the use of a Comedy Central clip, and there's no reason to believe that would be more likely to today.

That's an interesting quote from a company suing YouTube for a billion dollars for a lot of fair use clips (including some that Viacom itself uploaded), but ok. We'll take it at face value. Now, here's the original post:

---

Viacom owns Comedy Central and its hit program The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The show makes frequent use of fair use exceptions in copyright to show TV clips from other TV stations as part of the show. But apparently, Viacom and its lawyers think that fair use is only okay for big studios. With the news that Viacom is pulling The Daily Show and The Colbert Report off of Hulu in favor of its own sites, a Viacom lawyer PR guy threatened to sue any bloggers that posted unauthorized clips of the show. When asked by The Hollywood Reporter if it would go after bloggers posting clips, Viacom responded:

"Yes, we intend to do so," says PR rep Tony Fox. "My feeling is if (websites) are making money on our copyrighted content, then that is a problem."

Now, it's true that the video players that each of these shows use on their own official sites do allow for embedding -- but they also have limits (and the player is definitely clunky). But, in response to Mr. Fox, isn't The Daily Show making money off of other's copyrighted content? Why isn't that a problem?

It's really rather disgusting to see big studios like Viacom pretend that fair use only exists when it's in their favor.

Filed Under: bloggers, colbert report, copyright, fair use, the daily show
Companies: viacom

FTC's Disclosure Rules Apply To Bloggers... But Not Celebrities?

from the double-standards... dept

The FTC's highly questionable disclosure rules have been in effect for a bit over a month now, and it appears that even the FTC doesn't understand who they apply to or how they apply. And that's the problem. Apparently, someone noticed that actress Gwyneth Paltrow lavished praise on a resort in Marrakech, Morocco, and wondered if Paltrow had paid for her stay there -- noting that it was the grand opening of the place, with lots of stars -- and Hollywood publicists asked about this said there was "not a chance in hell" that someone like Paltrow paid to attend. In fact, they wonder if Paltrow was even paid for her "appearance." So, how do the FTC rules apply? She was pitching a place that most likely gave her something quite valuable for free. That should be disclosed, right? That was the whole point of the FTC rules, right? Well, maybe not. When asked about it, the FTC hemmed and hawed and claimed that "celebrity endorsements are different." Why? Because consumers might "understand that celebrities are always getting free stuff." Right, but wasn't the whole reason that these new disclosure rules were instituted in the first place that bloggers and others were supposedly (though, I believe it to be exaggerated) "always getting free stuff" too? Basically, these FTC rules sound like the sorts of things that are totally subjective, whereby the FTC can crack down on someone they don't like if they have nothing else to use, but will leave others untouched.

Filed Under: bloggers, celebrities, disclosure, ftc, gwyneth paltrow

TSA Withdrew Subpoenas On Travel Bloggers... But Serious Questions Linger

from the this-is-security? dept

Last week, the news that the TSA visited two travel bloggers who had written about some rather obvious "security directives" that the TSA had refused to confirm publicly (i.e., that everyone boarding a flight to the US would get a pat down) got a fair bit of attention. Beyond just seeking their sources, the TSA agents had subpoenas and with one of the bloggers, were quite threatening and ended up confiscating his laptop (which was then damaged when it was returned). With the story getting so much attention, the TSA withdrew the subpoenas saying they were no longer necessary. While some are attributing this to the negative publicity received in the press, it seems more likely that they had figured out what they needed (especially with Steven Frischling handing over his laptop).

There are two other aspects of the story that remain in question and are somewhat troubling. The first is the issue raised by Danny Sullivan about Google's role in this effort. It came out in the early reports that both bloggers had received the notice from someone with a Gmail account. Google won't comment on whether or not it received a subpoena in this case, but it seems likely that it did. In fact, as Sullivan points out, Google -- unlike some other companies -- often seems quite willing to comply with such subpoenas without giving users a chance to protect themselves. This is the company's right, of course, but given Google's own positioning as a protector of user rights, you would think it would be a bit more aggressive on this front.

The second issue concerns reports that the TSA more or less forced Frischling to post a Twitter message, asking the guy who sent him the original email to email him again. Again, earlier reports had noted that Frischling had already deleted the email when the TSA agents had arrived. So, the suggestion is that they wanted to get him to email again. An "anonymous source" (so take it for what it's worth) is claiming that the TSA agents typed a message into Twitter asking the guy to send Frischling an email, but told Frischling to actually "send" the Twitter message, so they could deny that they had posted it.

Given all of this, it seems like there's a half decent chance that the TSA withdrew the subpoenas because it already had what it needed. It could get the guy's email from Frischling's computer after the guy emailed back -- and then could subpoena Google to find out who it was, without getting much pushback. The bigger question, though, remains why this is happening at all. The "security directive" wasn't classified. It wasn't secret and it was obvious to anyone who happened to fly into the US from a foreign country. If the TSA really thinks that keeping something like this secret somehow makes us more secure, it's even more messed up than previously thought.

And, once again, we're reminded why we should have a federal shield law to protect anyone engaged in journalism from having to reveal their sources.

Filed Under: bloggers, security, shield law, subpoenas, terrorism
Companies: tsa

Reuters Blogger Questions Reuters Editorial Actions: Transparency In Action

from the does-this-make-reuters-more-trustworthy-or-less? dept

Well, here's an interesting one. There were reports last week claiming that Reuters had spiked a story about hedge fund big shot Steven Cohen after Cohen complained to Reuters management. While Reuters has since strongly denied the charge, it is interesting to note (as sent in by reader JJ) that at least one Reuters blogger complained quite vocally about this decision. The full blog post, written on Reuter's Hedge World blog is well worth reading. Here's a brief snippet:

As a news organization, all we have connecting us to our audience is our credibility. When we make mistakes, when we miss the point, when we fail to publish in a timely manner--each of these creates a little crack in that credibility. Once enough cracks form over time, the credibility is eroded and ultimately broken apart. At that point it doesn't matter how many orange dots you have swirling around your TV commercial or how intelligent you claim your information is. Once that bond is broken you're screwed.

Because Reuters is my company, there's a big part of me that hopes this incident has been blown out of proportion; that the blogs don't have the whole story. I fear that's not the case, however. The way it looks now is positively scandalous. And as a journalist it makes me almost physically ill to think about it.

I hope someone above me addresses the situation publicly, because lord knows not addressing it ain't working. Right now this incident is relatively contained (although it was the most viewed post on ZeroHedge as of Tuesday). But by next week, this will be all over the place--Romanesko, Drudge. From there it could get real ugly real fast.

And herein, I hope, lies a lesson for whomever killed Matt Goldstein's Steve Cohen story: When you make a decision like that, under those circumstances, the back story will get out. And the fallout from that back story will always, always be worse than the fallout from the story itself.

What strikes me as most interesting about this is that this Reuters post is still up. Reuters did not pull it. It does have an update link at the top to another blog that posted Reuters' denial (not even a Reuters page... which is also noteworthy). While I'm still curious about the decision to spike the story, I have to admit that the fact that a Reuters blogger was allowed to post this blog seriously questioning the integrity of Reuters management (his own bosses) lends at least some more credibility to Reuters itself. This is strengthened by the fact that the blog post has remained up as well.

Compare this to the stories that went around when the Associated Press was announcing its silly and totally useless attempt to DRM the news. At the time, I heard from a few different AP reporters who thought it was a ridiculous idea that made the Associated Press look bad -- but they weren't allowed to say that publicly, and had no real outlet to do so. Reuters and the AP compete pretty directly in the newswire business, and every time I compare them to one another Reuters seems to come out ahead in recognizing where the world is heading. If it is true that Reuters spiked the Cohen story, that would be quite damning and could make me question trusting Reuters, but how it's handled this news so far, and how it's reacted to its own blogger talking about the story is impressive.

Filed Under: bloggers, pressure, reporters
Companies: associated press, reuters

Virtual Goods, Scams, Investigative Reporting And The Media

from the all-in-one-package dept

For many years, we've been quite skeptical of any business model in virtual worlds/social networks that rely on "buying virtual goods." That's because these are all based on artificial scarcities, and as we all know (hopefully, by now), relying on artificial scarcities for a business model is incredibly risky, especially once people realize the scarcities are artificial. And yet, over the past few years, a number of businesses have been built on this very premise. In fact, Silicon Valley is crawling these days with businesses built on selling virtual goods, and if you talk to many VCs about it, you'll quickly note that they're positively giddy over the fact that people are paying for this stuff. What they don't seem to realize is that it's unlikely to last.

In the last couple weeks, Mike Arrington, over at TechCrunch, did an amazing job calling attention to the widely known, but rarely discussed in polite company, dark underbelly to most of those business models: quite a large part of their revenue is based on scammy offers that effectively trick unsophisticated purchasers (often kids) into signing up for expensive subscriptions to things they don't want. I was at an investor "roundtable" a couple months ago, which was mostly bankers in suits, and they were laughing about just how gullible people are on these things, and it's great to see TechCrunch exposing them, and pushing the worst abusers to clean up their act. Of course, even when some, like Zynga, claim to be cleaning up their act, Arrington was able to dig up a video where Zynga's CEO proudly talked about the scammy tactics he used -- and then noted that these same scammy tactics showed right back up on Zynga, after the company promised they were gone. Those who use these kinds of tactics may find that while they "bring revenue now," it may be short-lived. Companies that focus on such abusive tactics live to regret it (just ask RealNetworks).

But, the really amazing thing, as pointed out by Dan Lyons/Fake Steve Jobs, in an amazingly un-Fake-Steve-Jobs-like rant, is to compare the series of writeups by Arrington with the love letter to Zynga and other "virtual goods" companies in the NY Times, which came out after most of Arrington's posts, and makes no mention of them at all. As Lyons/FSJ notes:

So: they walked into this shit-storm and somehow, by some miracle, managed not to notice the fecal matter flying all around them. It's like covering a football game that took place in the middle of the blizzard and neglecting to mention the weather.

Now, maybe they did all the reporting before Arrington's stuff broke. In which case they should have gone back and updated their info. Or maybe, just maybe, Zynga's PR people teed up a Times story as a kind of rebuttal to what Arrington was reporting. Either way, that's what ended up happening: Zynga used the Times to deflect the bad shit flying at them from Arrington. They need good press because they're hoping to cash out by going public next year. That story in the Times will be worth millions. Many millions.

Meanwhile, Arrington, still digging, blasted again on Saturday night, reporting that sleazy ads had popped up again on Zynga, despite promises that they would be taken down.

Um, New York Times? If you guys are still wondering why people are dropping their subscriptions and getting their news from blogs instead of you -- this is why.

After which, Lyons/FSJ notes:

And to all those people who go around wringing their hands and saying what are we going to do when the "real newspapers" all die and we have to get our news from Gawker and HuffPo and TechCrunch? Friends, I think we're going to be just fine.... What really cracks me up is how often I still hear people say that bloggers are mere "aggregators" and the "real journalism" gets done at places like the Times. Because time after time, blogs are simply beating the shit out of the newspapers. They're the ones who still dare to go for the throat, while their counterparts at big newspapers just keep reaching for the shrimp cocktail.

Of course, there's just a bit of irony in noting that Dan Lyons wrote one of the quintessential blog bashing articles four years ago, when he was writing for Forbes, at one point suggesting that blogger "journalists" were no different than notorious (NY Times) maker-up-of-stories, Jayson Blair. Nice to see he's coming around to recognizing things perhaps aren't so bad in the blog world.

Filed Under: bloggers, dan lyons, media, michael arrington, offers, reporting, scams, virtual goods
Companies: offerpal, techcrunch, zynga

Athletes Can Start Endorsing A Brand In Hours... But A Blogger Does It And It's A Federal Issue?

from the hmmm... dept

As the FTC still wants to stick by its questionable guidelines concerning bloggers "endorsing" products, I found it interesting that the NY Times was profiling a new online service that more easily allows brands to sign endorsement deals with star athletes. Basically, they just need to fill out a few forms, and within hours, that athlete may be the face of the local car dealership. Now, I don't see anything wrong with this, but I'm curious as to why this is somehow okay, but when a blogger fails to mention that he or she got a book for free, the FTC will consider fining them? Does anyone actually believe that the star football player shops at the local Ford dealer?

Filed Under: athletes, bloggers, disclosure, endorsements
Companies: ftc