Are bloggers journalists?

[Paul Kierstead]

From the description of her 'publication', I think it would be very hard to consider it "press" in the sense the law intended it to. I don't think the primary problem was the medium, it was the message. The judge brought up the problem of affiliation because if the publication seems questionable, you might ask, well what do established publications think of the author, and she lacked a third party opinion, basically giving the judge some leeway to make his own finding.

[mkayahara]

Fundamentally, it's no easier defining "real" and "fake" journalists than it is defining "real" and "fake" chefs!

[IndyRob]

I'm am not a lawyer, but I'd like to be a Supreme Court Justice (Are you kidding me? A lifetime appointment, for good money, lots of time off, and I only have to offer my opinion...?)

But in these cases, I think it's important to note exactly what distinctions are being made and for what purposes. In this case, the judge threw out all of the complaints as freely expressed opinions, save one where she called the subject a 'thug' and a 'liar' based, she claimed, on an inside source.

If she would have been able to produce the inside source this last claim probably would have been thrown out as well. But that's where she invoked the shield law - bringing the journalism aspect into question.

I imagine that the judge's decision had to turn on weighing the damage to an allegedly libeled individual with interests the public good. He found that congress had addressed the issue and afforded protection to 'journalists'. And that's where the finding becomes relevant.

I suspect that if she were able to demonstrate a plausible interest in the public good, as opposed to a track record of harassing blog posts, she might have been more successful in securing a favorable result.

But whether you're a journalist or blogger, if you post something like "I have it on good authority from an inside source that the Acme Restaurant regularly serves rat meat.", well, then prepare to circle the legal wagons.

And perhaps that's the true distinction. Real journalists typically work for companies that employ lawyers to keep them out of jams like this.

[Fat Guy]

One chapter of one of my books was once sent to the publisher's legal department for review, though it came back without comment. Ironically, I think it is the least reputable tabloid publishers that have the largest legal departments.

In any event, I think the salary/compensation/revenue distinction does not get to questions of the definition of journalism or journalist. Rather, that issue seems more relevant to determining whether someone is a professional or amateur journalist -- though it is an imperfect test even for that.

In my opinion what blogging has done, among other things, is create a class of amateur journalists that is many millions strong. I don't personally think laws protecting journalists should apply to professionals only. Amateur journalists have an important role to play, we can cite example upon example where amateur journalists have broken important stories,and what we're seeing more and more, as the large publishing entities hire from the ranks of bloggers, is that amateur online journalism is a gateway to professional journalism. I think it would be more sensible for laws to look to conduct to distinguish journalists from non-journalists.

[MaxH]

... perhaps that's the true distinction. Real journalists typically work for companies that employ lawyers to keep them out of jams like this.

In my experience FWIW, it's exactly the real journalists who know enough about things like libel principles and evidence standards that they do not get into jams like this in the first place.

Fundamentally, it's no easier defining "real" and "fake" journalists than it is defining "real" and "fake" chefs!

Fundamentally or not, I think many people can tell the difference. Again I wonder about overfine distinctions in discussions such as ("but not limited to!") this one and the one about "real" chefs -- a preoccupation with trees that obscures the forest.

People have always eagerly labeled themselves things like "artist" or "writer" from precisely the one viewpoint least capable of objectivity and detachment about it. Anyone can call themselves something, but if the label is meaningful, it's by consensus of peers, customers, etc., not the self-styler. Strunk or White once said a statement doesn't become funny just by being labeled so; I think that's the same principle.

[IndyRob]

This was a case involving libel. Libel applies not only to journalists, but to bloggers and even message board posters (or anyone that shouts on a street corner).

We can't justify libel by claiming that it's a new world.

[mkayahara]

Fundamentally, it's no easier defining "real" and "fake" journalists than it is defining "real" and "fake" chefs!

Fundamentally or not, I think many people can tell the difference. Again I wonder about overfine distinctions in discussions such as ("but not limited to!") this one and the one about "real" chefs -- a preoccupation with trees that obscures the forest.

People have always eagerly labeled themselves things like "artist" or "writer" from precisely the one viewpoint least capable of objectivity and detachment about it. Anyone can call themselves something, but if the label is meaningful, it's by consensus of peers, customers, etc., not the self-styler. Strunk or White once said a statement doesn't become funny just by being labeled so; I think that's the same principle.

On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with legal decisions being made on the basis of "I know it when I see it". I've seen that approach abused far too many times.

Edited April 10, 2012 by mkayahara (log)

[Edward J]

O.K., I'm a pastry chef, no background at all in law or journalism, so this is just a shot in the dark, but......

With all the other 'traditional" media, the content is edited. Compensation for the journalist may or may not be based on the editing, but the fact remains that someone other than the journalist has final say on what may be printed.

Does the host website have control (editing powers) over the blogger?

[nikkib]

I tend to think of people who write about food as food writers or critics not as a journalist. What's the definition? What criteria do I have - I don't know - sure, some "journalists" also write about food but as a sideline to other work. I think bloggers could be considered writers but a journalist suggest a qualification or degree to me at least.

[nikkib]

Clearly from my comments I am not a journalist or a writer... They made sense in my head at least :-)

[Shel_B]

I recall some years ago that those who wrote for online publications were not considered journalists and that the media on line were not taken seriously. That has certainly changed. Perhaps bloggers will make the transition at some point.

[SobaAddict70]

O.K., I'm a pastry chef, no background at all in law or journalism, so this is just a shot in the dark, but......

With all the other 'traditional" media, the content is edited. Compensation for the journalist may or may not be based on the editing, but the fact remains that someone other than the journalist has final say on what may be printed.

Does the host website have control (editing powers) over the blogger?

Hosting platforms such as WordPress, TypePad and BlogSpot have terms and conditions that any blogger is required to agree to in order to start blogging using their templates (and presumably have their blogs hosted on their umbrella sites).

So in that respect, the host has control if a post is violative of those terms. Things like hate speech or objectionable content, for example.

I'm not so sure about defamatory remarks. Possibly. I'd have to read the fine print.

[FrogPrincesse]

I think that the lines are getting blurred. More and more newspapers use bloggers for their online content. For example, in San Diego several publications have bloggers who write about their restaurant experiences. Typically, the content is not edited. Facts are not checked. It's not unusual to spot a grammatical error in the first paragraph. The articles are often accompanied by photographs that are amateurish at best (e.g., blurry/dark pictures). Also, these articles are very rarely critical; they read most of the time like a paid commercial. Is this journalism?

[Honkman]

@ Frogprincesse Completely agree on everything - it is astonishing how the quality of restaurant "reviews" in San Diego dropped over the last few years once they started mainly to print blogger reports ( and I am pretty sure that is not an issue only in San Diego) which are often horrible written and sound more like PR material from the restaurants. I can't remember the last time I read a even decent review anywhere especially after Naomi Wise died.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Honkman (log)

[Toliver]

I agree that renumeration can't be the litmus test for whether or not someone can be called a journalist.

As Steven pointed out, that is the just the difference between someone being called a "professional" versus being called an "amatuer".

I've also seen "reviews" in local newspapers which were little more than thinly veiled paid testamonials. Basically it was a positive restaurant review in exchange for a comped meal and cocktails. Is the writer a journalist then, since they were paid for what they wrote? I think most would answer "no".

So the question remains, what makes a writer a journalist?

[Paul Kierstead]

Actually, even if a writer is a journalist, that doesn't make everything they write journalism. And I think that is the real issue here; its not about the medium it was presented in or the qualifications of the writer, but that the piece was just a hit piece and uncorroborated, with nothing more then hearsay to back up the anonymous source. If the blogger had presented other evidence that backed up the allegation, they might have had more luck. From what I've read, I don't think most newspapers would print something potentially libelous from a writer based solely on the writer saying "I got an anonymous source" without further corroboration.

[Cragganmore17]

I would imagine the subject matter and responsibility may help to define whether a piece is journalism. I wouldn't consider one person's opinions of meal had at XYZ restaurant to be journalism. Now if XYZ is serving dog meat, employing 4 year olds as dishwashers, and grinding old waiters into soylent green, that story sounds like something that would require actual journalistic integrity, clear distinction between opinion and fact, and general accountability. However shocking it may be that the fish was overcooked at Le Bernadin, I just do not see that story as capturing the journalistic spirit.

[mkayahara]

Actually, even if a writer is a journalist, that doesn't make everything they write journalism.

I would imagine the subject matter and responsibility may help to define whether a piece is journalism.

Now this is interesting: Does "journalism" inhere in the writer, or the individual piece of writing?

[Jaymes]

I agree that renumeration can't be the litmus test for whether or not someone can be called a journalist.

As Steven pointed out, that is the just the difference between someone being called a "professional" versus being called an "amatuer".

So, "Amateur Journalist"? Not a contradiction in terms?

By that definition, I guess all bloggers qualify.

Okay, so I'm being flip. But I'll repeat that I do see journalism as a profession, complete with the parameters that define professionalism in other disciplines.

And when you get good enough, and competent enough, and serious enough, and "professional" enough, that others respect your work enough to pay you to do it (even if, as Steven points out, occasionally you choose to do it for little or no remuneration), I think you've crossed some sort of line beyond which you can be said to have earned the title of whatever it is. In this case, a "journalist."

That's not the only distinction, obviously.

Obviously.

But in my view it's an important one.

Without that distinction, I think it's pretty difficult to determine a "real" journalist from some blogger that just says (and thinks) that's what he/she is.

And when they tell you that they're a "journalist," and you ask them if anyone has ever paid them for their writing, and they say, um, well, no, not really, I kinda think that sums it up right there.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jaymes (log)

[Jaymes]

I agree that renumeration can't be the litmus test for whether or not someone can be called a journalist.

And...

Just for the record, I, too, agree that "remuneration can't be the litmus test for whether or not someone can be called a journalist." Nor did I anywhere so assert.

In fact, there very clearly is no "litmus test." If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not so stupid as to say that the minute someone pays you for your words/reporting/reviews, etc., you're automatically a "journalist."

And that if no one ever has, you absolutely, definitely are not.

That would be silly. And demonstrably incorrect.

I don't have any hard and fast and true and unassailable definition as to what is a journalist, any more than does anyone else.

I'm just saying that, in my view anyway (and our perception is what I thought this thread was about), if you want to call yourself a legitimate journalist, and you expect your claim to be taken seriously, having been paid for your work would help to substantiate it.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jaymes (log)

[heidih]

From the legal perspective as it applies to libel and such issues I think the typical blogger does not fit the mold. The self styled "investigative" ones I suspect do not have enough credibility to even cause lawyer retention. As someone noted earlier - unless the food subject is investigative and ground breaking I do not see "journalism". Perhaps I am old and thinking Woodward and Bernstein.

Journalist? I think perhaps we could agree on a good example? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57410999/remembering-mike-wallace-1918-2012/

[Fat Guy]

Now this is interesting: Does "journalism" inhere in the writer, or the individual piece of writing?

Possibly both. I think it's helpful to ask why we need to define journalism in the first place. The most important reason, I think, is for the purpose of shield laws, e.g., laws that protect journalists' sources. It may be that, for such a law to protect you, you need to be a journalist in the act of writing a piece of journalism.

[ChrisTaylor]

I'm going to say no. And I'll apply this as a blanket statement to all bloggers, even the ones who act try and report or comment on 'real' news. Why? A journalist, as has been pointed out, whether they write for a paper or a website, has their work pass through an editorial process before it reaches the reader. A journalist follows, in theory, a code of ethics. I mean, really, a reviewer shouldn't be getting freebies. And if they do, they should be very open about it. John Smith was a guest of ACME Hotels and Mohawk Airlines. And even then I don't think it's okay. Behaving this way is a professional obligation, even though, yes, some professionals don't always behave this way and will use their position to scam all kinds of nice free shit in return for favourable comment. A blogger should follow a code of ethics that is understood by people other than him/herself, and some crtainly do, but there's no professional obligation there. With a newspaper or magazine or a website that's, er, not a blog (such as, I don't know, the New York Times website), it's clear--usually, hopefully--where news story and reviews end and where advertorials begin. That distinction has to be clear. With a blog post it may not be.

In Australia, at least, some new restaurants (particularly those that are the second or third place an established chef has opened) may invite a whole lot of bloggers in for a meal and meet-and-greet-type thing. As a way of generating publicity. It's advertising. Yes, the blogger might go away and say, oh, it was mostly okay food but the oxtail ravioli was pretty shit, but it's so obviously cash-for-comment it's not funny. And there are no ethics written down anywhere--it's a bit of a wild west situation on blogspot or even in eGullet threads--for those bloggers to be open, when they write up their review later that night, that the expense of their meal and plonk was covered by the Swedish Chef. There's perhaps, and this is me being super cynical, no obligation to be honest if you figure your readership is large enough and your comments favourable enough to maybe get a few more free meals around town. There's no real process, no editor or legal guy to say 'reign that shit in', to prevent a blogger from saying something inappropriate. I'm thinking of the eGullet thread about Sat Bains' restaurant. There was an interesting and increasingly personal exchange between a blogger and Mr Bains--maybe not-so-hot PR on Bains' part, but there's no way an editor would allow any sort of 'didn't you know who I am, Mr. Swedish Chef? I'm an important reviewer!' challenge to a chef who is obviously very proud of his business and food to make its way into a respectable paper.

Of course, me, I'd even be tempted to argue, depending on my mood and the day of the week and the alignment of the celestial bodies, that anyone who isn't covering honest-to-God hard news or serious investigative reports--a food writer, a columnist, a sports reporter, the guy who answers readers' questions about which car to buy their 18-year-old daughter----isn't a true journalist and is, instead, a food/opinion/sport/auto/etc writer. Maybe. Which is perhaps very silly of me, given people reviewing restaurants and cars and videogames and opera performances should be adhering to the principles of being unbiased and objective as possible (even tho' many established food writers/guidebooks have very obvious and clear and well-known biases and sacred cows).

Edited April 11, 2012 by ChrisTaylor (log)

[MaxH]

... A journalist follows, in theory, a code of ethics. I mean, really, a reviewer shouldn't be getting freebies. And if they do, they should be very open about it. ... Behaving this way is a professional obligation, even though, yes, some professionals don't always behave this way and will use their position to scam all kinds of nice free shit in return for favourable comment. A blogger should follow a code of ethics that is understood by people other than him/herself

In the current thread on aggregated online reviews, I mentioned bumping into variations of that. Some of my experience (clarified by quizzing restaurateurs) is of prominent restaurants accustomed to buttering up shoppers (less actually journalists, from what I learned, than researchers for guide books, the regional tourist board or even Chamber of Commerce literature). But also, in late years restaurateurs have increasingly vented about bloggers greedy to cash in on their influence (even if just self-perceived) by lining up shamelessly at this trough. When, as often true, the blogger is unknown to an even Internet-savvy restaurateur, it really stands out.

That behavior undermines both ethical and journalistic ambitions of bloggers generally.

[daydayxvi]

Reading through this I think there's just one thing missing in the conversation. Who stands behind these bloggers? I mean, one day I decided to write a blog and about a year later it's still growing quite healthily. I post about once a week and it's entirely an opinion piece. I do not consider myself a journalist because it's all my opinion, my decision to write it and there is no one looking over my shoulder to see what I'm doing.

I think it's a hugely important part of the process to have someone to back up what you're doing because that calls for some kind of oversight, responsibility and credibility. Blogging is either a creative outlet or an entertainment venue. While some people have taken to the blogosphere to get their news out there and use it as a news venue I don't believe that it can be given the same standing as a news media since there's no real vetting process behind what goes out there, no standardized quality revision and you do not have the backing of what one might call people of standing.

If that were to change, say a company that dedicates itself to news coverage with backing from seasoned tried and true journalist professionals that might have a shot at changing. But just someone going out there and calling themselves journalists will not work. While I'm not saying that all news corporations meet any particular minimum standard, it is already an established medium. Blogging, on the other hand, is not.