bloggers and journalists

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ 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/