Interesting People mailing list archives
bloggers and journalists
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:37:07 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:20:04 -0500 To: Bradley Roberts <br2 () u washington edu> Cc: <dave () farber net>, <Jpaczkowski () realcities com> Subject: Re: bloggers and journalists [dave: for ip if you like] Bradley, Thanks for your reply. Personally I think a bit too much attention is being paid to blogging nowadays, but I suppose I will rise to bloggers' defense anyway. Some bloggers will act as responsibly as journalists in terms of protecting confidences; some will not. Some journalists, even columnists for the Washington Post, have divulged the identities of their confidential sources. Some journalists have lied. Some journalists have plagarized. So have some bloggers. Others have acted honorably. Whether you like it or not, there is no immutably crisp line dividing the two groups of people from a practical standpoint, and there must not be one from a legal standpoint. I've worked for a number news organizations including some of the largest around. I believe you're mistaken to think that if Dan Gillmor's old newspaper the SJMN received a verifiable tip about a forthcoming Apple product -- say a radical new iVideo handheld device -- they would somehow refuse to print it. What silliness! (The situation may be different now -- Dan can speak for himself -- because he has a new job and a new role.) Second, I believe you are mistaken to believe Apple would sue the SJMN; it is protected by the California Constitution while Powerpage is probably not. That discrepancy is the point of my column. Good blogging is good journalism. Bad blogging is spending all day writing about your cats. -Declan Bradley Roberts wrote:
I fail to see why journalists are in an uproar about bloggers being marked as distinct from journalists. Clearly bloggers are not held to the same standards and to include them in your ranks dilutes the *ahem* reputation that journalists have. In many cases, companies and politicians share information off the record with journalists - and that relationship is maintained because journalists know they'll lose access if they break confidence. Bloggers just don't give a shit and will "print" anything they want, rarely holding back sensitive information. I like having bloggers - it makes life interesting. Journalists, however, seem to have their priorities mixed up by willingly associating themselves with bloggers and ultimately hurting their own profession. What makes bloggers interesting is that they'll print what journalists won't - because they don't have editors telling them they're crossing a line! Dan Gilmor has built up 25 years of trust with his sources and probably has a reasonable understanding of what is publishable and what is not - but he's no longer a journalist in the traditional definition - maybe just a trusted blogger. Apple would seek discovery of his sources if he were to publish the same information as Jason Ogrady (powerpage) but he would never publish this information! He wouldn't get into the same fix! How can he be in such an uproar when what they did clearly supported the violation of trade secrets? I'm 25 and have been following some of these sites since their inception and I am capable of recognizing the difference between journalism and whatever it is that bloggers post. disclosure: I did once work for Apple, but am no apologist for them.
------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- bloggers and journalists David Farber (Mar 07)