Writing for New Media

I found the first blog post about blogger being a legitimate news source very interesting. Working in media relations, I am contacted by mainstream reporters and bloggers. We find it difficult sometimes to respond to every requestor and most of the time the mainstream reporter will receive responses first. However, a blogger could have an impact on a story if we ignore them. I believe some bloggers are reputable media outlets; however, you can not give every blogger the title as a reporter.

The second posts about the Washington Post were also interesting. Working for the government, we always have to be careful when our Director is invited places to speak for exact reasons the Washington Post had issues. Sponsorship is a sticky situation and needs to be looked at carefully.

I enjoyed reading the final post about David Rohde. I find myself torn sometimes as I read and watch the news. I know the media has a duty to inform the public but sometimes I believe they release too much information or inappropriate information. I agree with the decision to not publicize too much about Mr. Rohde’s kidnapping. It is an important story; however, as the article reported that publicity would raise value of Mr. Rohde’s to his captures. I find this very true. It’s sad but it may be in Mr. Rohde’s best interest to keep the media attention to a minimum. Sometimes not all the information can be reported. I feel sometimes the media needs to be patient and remember that someone’s life is the real issue.

I look forward to reading everyone's comments.
 

In regards to the first posting, the article about the New Jersey judge who ruled that blogging is not a legitimate form of news, I am both fascinated and appalled.

While it is interesting to me now that I am blogging to learn about legal precedents directly relevant to what I am doing,I am very troubled to learn how easily the judge was able to rule that bloggers have essentially none of the protection of journalists, despite the obvious journalistic purposes of many blogs out there.

What really bothers me about this issue is the statement made about the judge's blog-related questions that kept arising in court.

Clearly, the judge was in many ways clueless as to the many uses of blogging and internet journalism, and someone who is so clueless about blogging cannot possibly make an informed decision about the rights of a blogger.

Blogging to me holds a very necessary place in our media intake these days. I feel that mainstream news outlets have become less and less objective and the opinions put forth by mainstream broadcasts and publications have become more and more one-sided.

I think we need to allow a blogger to be able to go online and provide "citizen journalism," allowing him or her to tell a different side of the story that the big dogs in the game may have overlooked. Bloggers often can be very reputable journalists themselves, so ruling for a blanket verdict like this limiting their protection is not at all beneficial.

Blogging almost reminds me of the journalism world's equivalent of guerrilla warfare, being used by the little guy to even the playing field. For the judge to not even take this mindset into account when rendering his verdict is, to me, a crying shame.
 

First story:

As a person who has never been sued or gotten into trouble like Shellee Hale, I have to say that I agree with the judge — I might change my mind if I’m the one who got sued =). It is just hard to determine legitimacy of a news source without legitimate publication. For example, just because I interviewed REAL people for my stories that doesn’t mean I’m as legitimate as the Times or the Post. So, in Hale’s case, because she’s writing for her personal blog and not for any legitimate news publication, she should not get reporter’s privileges. I mean, not every blogger is legitimate. So, if the judge sided with her this time, other bloggers might want the same thing. Right?

Second story:

Leave Wikipedia alone! Wikipedia people can decide whatever they want because they have their own considerations. So what if they wanted to protect Rohde? People still have access to alternative blogs and alternative news outlets. Why Wikipedia should be targeted for having “a different decision?” Wait! I thought many people say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and many people say that Wikipedia should not be used for a reference. I don’t understand what they want. If it’s not reliable, why bother what it has to say? I love Wikipedia!

Third story:

To be honest, I’m confused. I don’t know what to say about this one. I mean, they want to gather money for their business and people are criticizing it. OK, if I’m not mistaken, I read this “Atlantic Media Company, owner of the Atlantic and the National Journal, hosts sponsored, off-the-record gatherings similar to what The Post was proposing.” I’m not sure how people react, but if it’s OK for them then why is it such a big deal for the Post. I don’t know, maybe someone from the class can explain it to me in a simpler way because I don’t think I get this one.

I think what I’ve learned from all the readings is that many people, who easily criticize, simply don’t put themselves in other people’s shoes. One can talk all they want about Freedom of Speech, but if one is going to die in the middle of a desert then he/she will think differently, I guess. It’s also hard for the judge to make a decision because hey! How many bloggers out there? If one can get away, others might want to get away too using the same trick. The last issue involved money. I should say newspaper company is a form business too. They need money to buy ink, pens, and papers, and of course to pay their staff. I have to say that I’m not sure about the last one so someone needs to correct me on that.
 

I found the blog post about Shellee Hale very interesting. First, I want to point out the fact that the judge who was appointed to the case should not have been the one to take it on. The judge did not have any clue about blogging and furthermore was completely out of touch with technology. The case may have had a different outcome had another judge been appointed.

Secondly, I want to point out the fact that she is a journalist and in my opinion, had the right to protect her sources. I also agree with the fact that if the court can pick and choose who is a “real journalist” it will be more difficult to expose corruption within businesses or corporations. One of the best lines from the blog post was when the quote was brought up from someone who sided with the judges decision, “ It's not that it becomes meaningless, but that it becomes very, very meaningful -- especially in an era where we're looking for new ways to prop up investigative journalism. If everyone's a journalist, and everyone has a reasonable expectation that their sources are shielded, then we're much more likely to continue to root out corruption. If this protection is somehow reserved for some "special" credentialed people, then it becomes that much harder to expose corruption.

The Company never denied what this woman wrote so how can they sue her for anything? Furthermore, doesn’t slander pertain to spoken, not written content? I can understand the statement that not everyone who blogs is a journalist, however times are changing. Online journalism is not the same as the journalism from years ago. Blogging is journalism in a different form. In some cases, you no longer have to stay objective, you can voice your own opinion in blogs. People get sick of just reading or hearing about the boring facts of a story with no emotion connected to it. Blogging allows people to communicate their own findings or points a view on an issue.

As far as Hale is concerned, I think that she was wronged by the court. This woman stayed true to journalism ethics when she did not out her source. The judge told her that she had "no connection to any legitimate news publication,” and all this shows is that he is behind about twenty years.
 

The first article shows the need for black and white guidelines for internet journalism (and for the judges to get up with the times if they are going to reside on these cases). I’m not convinced that someone’s blog can be seen as journalism as everyone in the world is starting to blog. Traditional media journalism has boundaries and clear cut right and wrong responsibilities to the public and I feel it is time for these standards to become a reality online. I want to be able to trust a newsworthy blogger, but how do I put my faith in someone I do not know?

I am one who trusts a reputable news magazine, but recently my trust with print magazine Newsweek was put to the test when I saw Steven Colbert, guest editor, on the front their June 15, 2009 issue Newsweek (sorry, but you have to subscribe, I tried to add a link). I trust Newsweek to bring me the facts on what is going on in the world. Seeing Steven Colbert on the cover led me to believe they were just doing a feature on him. I really have never seen Steven Colbert’s show, but I did recognize him. I started reading the editor’s introduction and how this issue was being written by Steven Colbert and his team – well, that is fine, not what I was expecting, but ok. I start reading some of the stories and then I can’t figure out which stories in this issue are “facts” from the Newsweek reporters or satire from Steven Colbert. I found I did not want to continue reading it as I no longer trusted what I was reading.

This is how I feel about blogging. If I don’t see a blogger/reporter identified with a major media outlet backing this person, then I am more likely not to trust the information as newsworthy and more of an opinion by this person. I just do not trust the blogs at this point in time when there are no clear cut rules for everyone to follow. And, there is a need to follow the same journalism style guide requirements for blogger journalists.
 

2nd Article:
How can something as big as planning to host a series of off-the-record, sponsored dinners at Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth's home, and invite Obama administration officials, lawmakers, lobbyists, business leaders, and Post editors and reporters, with a small fee of $25,000 per dinner ever evolve to be put into a flier promising exclusive access to newsmakers and journalists in the first place?

I do not even believe the apology from the Washington Post publisher and staff. Are you kidding me that they are blaming it on a short deadline (isn’t that what media is all about – deadlines with accuracy), miscommunications (ok, they are the communicators), inaccurate promotional fliers (nothing in a newsrooms gets published without someone being told to do it) and the fact that Weymouth was on vacation and she never reviews promotional items (well, maybe next time she will).

An apology is needed, but not this apology. I’d be willing to accept an apology from them that stated more along the lines of, we thought we had a good idea (more of a group think problem), but in hind-sight we didn’t think everything through and here is how we are rectifying the situation. I’m not sure if someone needs to be fired or demoted, but that would help with the credibility they are trying to re-establish.
 

3rd Article:
I do feel Wikipedia did the right thing in helping to protect someone’s life. I’m tired of all the information our media giants keep releasing so that they can claim they had the story first. We are jeopardizing people’s lives with this type of coverage – our president, our troops, other important figures for what? So that NBC, ABC and CBS’s ratings are higher? We have lost so many reporters trying to get the story that it doesn’t always help in our efforts. Yes, we have a right to information, but how much is too much and at what expense?
 

1st Article: I dont understand why the blogger got sued for slander. But, I also believe that not every blog is considered to be news. I think the judge should have also researched information about the internet. I think someone should also make plain and simple guidelines as to what is considered news now or what media devices are considered news.

2nd article: What is the world of newspaper journalism turning into!? Journalists must remember the code of ethics. You cant just have a series of dinners with administration leaders, lawmakers business leaders and lobbyists without asking to lose your job. And it was at Weymouth's house at that! I mean what gave them the right? I found it crazy that they had meetings about the salon dinners right in the lobby of The Post, with Power Point presentations included. I always admired The Post, but now Im not to sure if I still do.

3rd article: Im kind of stuck when it comes to this story. I dont think Wikipedia did anything wrong. I just feel that The NY Times wanted to be the first to report the story, but I understand that that is their friend and co-worker and they dont want any other media publication to put Rhode's life in danger. But, if the world already knows now and they found out from various news media, then whats wrong with putting it on Wikipedia?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

In the story about the Washington Post sponsoring "salons" (by the way, why were they being billed as salons??) I knew even before reading the updated story that there was something more to it than Weymouth and her associates were admitting.

The first thing that made it sound shady was that Katharine Weymouth was going to be holding these gatherings at her house; why not a more public gathering place? It gave it a strange connotation to have it at her home.

I understand the appeal of connecting these people who normally can't be conversational with each other gathering, but when you start putting these big price tags on corporate sponsorship, the integrity of the event should have been questioned.

She has definitely taken responsibility and maybe even gained some redemption after publishing a formal apology in the paper, but the question still remains; how did something this conflicting get to the point it did?

In the update it said that there was a meeting where roughly 200 people were at least introduced to the idea of the "Washington Post Salons" and yet nobody spoke up.

Ombudsman Andrew Alexander quoted Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli as saying -

"When the publisher and the editor both appear to have signed off on an idea, I think it is perhaps true that a certain complacency sets in," he said. For that reason, lower-level managers might be less inclined "to stand up and say: 'Whoa, this is a bad idea.' "

While I can understand this rationale, and think Brauchli makes a good point; it is still sad to see that behavior in an environment where integrity is so important to the organizations existence.

One of Alexander's stories linked to the Post's "Bedrock Principles", and one of them reads: "In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good."

We all have to make money, but where does one draw the line? I am sure if Weymouth can hold these glamorous events, she could stand to take a hit in her salary for the better good of the Post.

Eugene Meyer, long time owner and publisher of the post and author of the principles spent millions of his own dollars to improve the paper after buying it. Seems like Weymouth should try to take a lesson from history.
 

While I think it was a necessary step and got Katharine Wegmouth some of her credibility back, I have to agree with Michelle that the apology sounded like a well thought out excuse.

For Weymouth to say she never saw the "language" on the flier, and that no ethics questions had been raised is takes some guts.

Weymouth went to Harvard College and Stanford Law School, you would think she would have a little bit more:
a.) intelligence to know this wouldn't slide
b.) integrity, especially in a journalistic institution

Maybe Weymouth thought that she could advance her social life and status while making some extra cash for the post?
 

As far as the blogger being protected by New Jersey's shield laws, I think it is a gray area that needs to be thoroughly discussed before things of this nature can be decided.

I agree with what Marci said, that you can't give every blogger the same rights as reporters; but there needs to be some kind of compromise or a situational basis that these kinds of things are decided.

It also brings into question how we label "blogs", especially as the traditional media are trying to incorporate them into their websites.

The whole definition of publishing online needs to be looked at closely, because while what is posted on line is out there for everybody to see, there is still not a clear definition of where the line is between being a citizen posting an opinion online and being a media producer.
 

In the Wikipedia story, I would have to side with Jimmy Wales and say that it was appropriate to remove posts about his kidnapping.

It was in the best interest of a man's life to have as little information online. The idea of Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, so I don't see why some people feel the incessant need to update it daily (even hourly) especially in a situation like this where a man is being held hostage.
 

Josh,
I wondered the same thing about why are these being called "salons" and why would the publisher be hosting these at her home instead of anywhere else.

Hosting a huge dinner party to the crowd that was invited only shows how Weymouth wants to have the power behind her not just during the dinner party, but for the future as well.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Christine,

I agree with you that the judge, who was picked for Shellee Hale’s case, should have been someone who understands blogging and technology in general. Some knowledge about blogging might help the judge to see this case with a lot more sense.

However, I still think that blogging is nothing compare to working with legitimate news publications. This may sound cliché but anyone with an Internet connection can be a blogger. Even though what Hale wrote can be considered accurate, Hale is still considered as a blogger because she wasn’t writing for any publication. If she gets the right to journalism shield law, then you and I can get it too! If that happens, you can write a story on, for example, a scandal on campus about a professor and you can say, “I can’t tell you the names of my sources!” I mean, even if it’s true, don’t you think it’s kind of scary to know anyone can do something like that?

I’m sorry if I keep giving example from Indonesia, but it’s the only place I can think about. =) Anyway, in Indonesia almost everyone wants to expose corruption in the government. Guess what happens when they have all the freedom? Yes, people write stuff and say stuff about others and they don’t tell you the sources. Many government officials went to court because they have done nothing wrong. The worst thing about this is that some reporters from legitimate news publications are misusing their freedom too. I can’t imagine what will happen if this freedom is given to bloggers too. It’s like everyday reporters or bloggers will think “who’s going to jail today?”

I guess my point is that if one can get the right then the rest can get it too. The problem with that is people like to abuse their rights. It’s kind of risky to let that happen with journalism shield law.
 

Wow, what a great discussion! You have raised a number of critical issues on each of these stories.
Just to highlight some of your key points:
1. The rise of new media including blogs will at some point require a serious redefinition of "journalist." each of you has done serios journalism on your blogs this semester -- shouldn't you be treated as professionals?
2. Judges and others involved in such cases need to have at least sone understanding of the new media landscape.
3. The Post fiasco was inexcusable. Last night at dinner 3,000 miles away, people were discussing it.
 

4. As for the Wikipedia story, I find that a tough call. Like the other issues here, it suggests some tough calls will need to be made in coming years.

Finally, a follow-up question: If you had to set standards for when a blogger gets treated like a journalist, what would they be?
 

Very difficult question. But I think there can be standards for bloggers who want to be considered equal to journalists. These are what I can think of:

1)Maybe the blogger should not work alone. A blogger can work with a small team so that there's some kind of a structure like in a newsroom. That way the blogger can have several people who act as editors.

2)This one is random but maybe bloggers who do real reporting should register themselves or something like that. So, there's a big difference between Ana Marie Cox and Awis Mranani.

3)This probably sounds boring but there's nothing wrong with giving both sides of the story. So, even though he/she wants to give information from an anonymous source, he/she can also add what the accused have to say (before the story is published; he/she should not wait until he/she get sued).

4)Also, bloggers should build people's trust. A blogger should make many posts before people can trust him/her. From those posts, all should be accurate and should contain real reporting. A blogger who comments on other people's work and only write twice a month is, in my opinion, not a journalist at all.

Do they sound like traditional journalism stuff? I don't know, other ideas?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I agree with Awis that this is a very difficult question. I still feel strongly that the blogger needs to be tied to some professional journalism group or media outlet to bring credibility to the blogger that they are working under journalist standards. There are already so many things people are lying about when they “pretend” to be someone they are not in cyber space – we need to protect against the wolf in sheep skin.

I think Awis 2nd and 4th points make sense if bloggers are not part of a media organization. I also think that to move forward in the new media writing, we can not abandoned the traditional rules, but instead build upon them.

Even where Prof Lieb points out that we are all journalist in our blogging for this class, I feel he can say that because he knows we are attending Towson. However, we have not revealed on our blogs that we are in the communications program at Towson, so how can anyone else know that we are journalist for sure?