Bio
I write Stirrup Queens when I'm not reading other people's blogs, cooking, or chasing after my twins. I'm the author of two books: Life from Scratch,...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Are Bloggers Journalists? Should They Get to Use Shield Laws? (Updated)

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 20
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

UPDATE: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that blogger Shellee Hale's comments on a message board are not protected under shield laws and she must reveal her sources.

From the Star-Ledger:

"To ensure that the privilege does not apply to every self-appointed newsperson, the legislature requires that other means of disseminating news be ‘similar’ to traditional news sources to qualify for the law’s coverage," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the 5-0 court. "We do not find that online message boards are similar to the types of news entities listed in the statute ..."

Read the full ruling in Too Much Media, LLC, et al. v. Shellee Hale here.

*****************

April 25, 2010: Ever have a negative experience with a company and your first impulse is to use the power of your website to go online and write about it? You may want to think twice, since a ruling in New Jersey against a blogger last week may have implications for whether or not bloggers are journalists (and therefore protected by shield laws) -- and whether you may need to be able to back up and prove any claims you make online.

Last July, the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Shellee Hale, a blogger, was not a journalist -- and therefore not protected by shield laws, which normally protect journalists -- when she went online and "defamed the company" [Too Much Media] "by writing, among other things, that the firm had violated state laws protecting consumers against identity theft," according to the ABA Journal.

Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio stated in the July decision, "To extend the newsperson's privilege to such posters would mean anyone with an e-mail address, with no connection to any legitimate news publication, would post anything on the internet and hide behind the shield law's protections."

Last week's appellate court ruling allowed the company, which according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, "supplies software to online pornography websites," to continue with its slander lawsuit.

Shield laws are there to protect journalists who need to serve as whistleblowers on sensitive issues prior to a legal ruling. They state that journalists do not need to reveal their sources and can refuse to testify about information they write in an article. Hale tried to utilize shield laws when the company demanded that she back up her claims and reveal her sources.

Yet bloggers often act as journalists -- journalists outside the mainstream media -- and this ruling could muzzle ordinary citizens from using their voice to point out the foibles of companies without protection from lawsuits. At the same time, this ruling could also protect citizens and companies from having slanderous statements made about them on the Internet. It's a ruling that cuts both ways.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether bloggers are journalists -- and if so, should they be held to the same standards as well as receive the same protections.
Journalistics
points out that the self-perception of bloggers as journalists has risen.

PRWeek and PRNewswire recently teamed up on a study that found 52% of bloggers consider themselves journalists. The last time they did this study, roughly a third of bloggers felt this way. Why do more bloggers consider themselves journalists these days?

Wordcount wrote about this debate years ago in regard to a situation in Oregon, where a local blogger wanted to attend executive meetings. Michelle Rafter makes a strong case for serious freelance writers untethered to a particular news organization and extends that to others. "But what about bloggers who never worked for a newspaper or magazine but are covering Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan, are they reporters?" she adds. "What if they cover community news, tech start ups or the presidential election? Should they get credentials to meetings and events? Speaking as a long-time reporter, freelancer and blogger, I say, yes, they should."

I love Childwild's take on the debate, that there is a need for both mainstream media journalists and bloggers as journalists:

I don't think the role of professional journalists will be replaced by amateur bloggers ... The world needs -- and continues to create venues for -- seasoned professionals whose entire job is to be the 4th estate and hold government and society accountable. What the proliferation of independent bloggers does is loosen the stranglehold mainstream media has on information and opinions. Yes, there's a lot of noise in the blogosphere, but there's a lot of

  • 20
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
LindaCSmith 5 pts

As a young woman I was a newspaper reporter - I worked for two different papers (different times of course). As a reporter my writing was covered by the Shield Law because the newspaper was covered...I worked for the paper; had I been a freelancer for the newspaper, my work still would have been protected for those articles I wrote sold to them. Now that I write a blog I don't see my blog as being a "news outlet." My blog isn't positioned that way, yet I do write opinion pieces and interviews. Blogs by definition are online dialogues - big "op ed" diaries and authors ought to know they are responsible for what they write. What about the blog Huffington Post? Is this a blog or an online "newspaper?" Are the posters there protected?

This is a good subject for discussion. The above article, however, indicates that the comments were put on a message board, not in a blog...simply because the writer is a blogger gives no Shield Law protection...aren't message boards "opinion" boards? Let's say a recognized reporter from a huge newspaper wrote something on a message board that was inflammatory...would their employer/newspaper extend their Shield Law to that writing? I don't think so.

I just think that as bloggers we should recognize that just because our words can be read by others online doesn't make what we write protected under law.

Linda C Smith, Artist and Writer

http://www.intlnat.com

kimber 5 pts

This is a very interesting and timely article.

I have had my blog for a little over four years now and I have, at times, given kudos and blasts to a few organizations. Having taken a bit of tort law in university, my thoughts have never gone towards Shield protection but always towards ensuring that my statements are factual.

Slander and libel will only come to haunt you if the the statements are false.

Keep it real!

Cheers!

Kim

http://whats-nextblog.com

Nordette Adams 6 pts

And I get a little edgy like CouponCandy with arguments such as "all bloggers are writers" or "bloggers are journalists," too. While I believe that many bloggers write as well as some trained journalists, and in some cases write better than some professionals, I do not think bloggers should automatically be protected by shield laws. In addition, while I appreciate what Hale is trying to do with her her work and sympathize with the struggle to start your own enterprise, I think her lawyer made mistake with the argument that she's a journalist protected by shield laws. Therefore, I ended up writing so much on the topic that I published the response at my personal blog instead of here as a courtesy to readers: "The Slippery Slope of All Bloggers are Journalist ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2011/06/slippery-slope... )."

Thank you. I missed this story in regular news.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

CandaceApril 5 pts

A blogger may or may not be a journalist... but posting on a message board is definitely not journalism.

---

Candace Lindemann is an educational consultant and writer who blogs at Naturally Educational ( http://naturallyeducational.com ), Army Wives' Lives ( http://ArmyWivesLives.com ), and Mamanista ( http://mamanista.com ).

Mrs_wonderbread 5 pts

You're right, this is a hard subject.
My two cents, it was not published in an article, but put in a message board. Comments in a board are NOT journalism.
If she had wanted to blow a whistle the right way (not on a message board get a hold of a newspaper! She could have argued shield laws better than.
I also look forward to seeing where journalism/blogger lines get drawn- I worked in the field before having my son, although I don't call myself one right now because I don't have the backing of a credible organization behind me.

foodhoundette 5 pts

While I am not a journalist (take a peek at my blog post on Journalist vs. Bloggers), I do often write articles in a journalistic slant. I have interviewed individuals and these interviews, in turn, have turned into articles. However, my blog writing is different from the articles I write for the media outlets that I freelance for. I do consider myself a blogger. I also consider myself a writer. There is no shame in being on and the same. I don't have a degree in journalism, nor do I have any shame in that lack of degree. I write because I love it. For the sake of all that is just and true, I try to stick to the facts as I know them and not go off on tangents in my blog . . . unless they're of a personal nature. I don't use my blog to blast individuals or companies. I do, however, believe that many bloggers need to be more responsible in how they write and what they write about. For many, it is about entertainment; unfortunately, some take it too far.

Melissa Ford 5 pts

There is, though, a slippery line in defining journalist. For instance, my local paper--which is an accredited news outlet, in production for 50+ years and a respected newspaper in the area--has writers on staff who do not have a degree in journalism or a background in journalism. They have an interest in writing and they can write a news article well enough to be employed by this newspaper. Are they a journalist? Should they be protected? If a blogger gets a job with them tomorrow, should their blog posts not be protected, but the articles they write for this newspaper protected?

I'm not talking about in terms of quality, I'm just talking in terms of logistics--that a person can be not protected one day and protected the next day and not have the methods for collecting the facts for the piece change at all.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

couponcandy 5 pts

Finally -- I'm glad that bloggers aren't protected as journalists because they aren't journalists.
By day I actually work for the national media as a journalist and I went to school for journalism and have worked in journalism for 25 years.
Bloggers are people who have an interest they want to write about or promote but they are not journalists and should not be protected by the Federal Shield Law.
You want protection that is afforded journalists then get out there and work for accredited news outlets.
Just my two cents...and I'm protected by the Federal Shield Law as I should be.

mashadutoit 5 pts

"If there were other laws, surely they would have been used to protect her during this second trial?"

I would suppose so too, which is quite worrying, because that suggests a big challenge to everybodys freedom of speech.

I suppose its also possible that the people in question felt that the principle of "bloggers are also journalists" was more important to defend than the pure freedom of speech angle.

Melissa Ford 5 pts

Though if she had revealed her sources, would they have had a case of slander? Or is it the fact that she isn't backing up her statements with proof that they become slanderous?

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

Melissa Ford 5 pts

I think the case is when you aren't willing to reveal your sources. I can speak of an incident on the web and not get sued for slander if I can back up my statements with proof and I'm willing to reveal who gave me information, etc. I think the thing that gets tricky is when bloggers can't or won't reveal their sources--either to protect their sources or to protect themselves. The average blogger has little to worry about.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

prattleonboyo 5 pts

In the State of California, the closest thing a private citizen has to protection is called an Anti-SLAPP, where the latter stands for Strategic Laws Against Public Participation.

SLAPPS are lawsuits generally filed by Big Bu$$ine$$ XYZ in an attempt to silence any criticism/whistleblowing, etc. as communicated to a government entity on an issue of public interest or concern. You can read more here: http://tinyurl.com/4mldu

But returning to the subject matter at hand, I concur with the first comment - it is not a matter of whether the person expressing the speech is a "blogger" or "journalist." What matters is the protection of the speech. All else is just a specious, BS argument that essentially protects the corporately consolidated media since shield laws only protect those associated with an established publication. Note: this is code for a Big Bu$$ine$$ media conglomerate.

sandiegojackson 5 pts

I guess I understand. Perhaps the definition needs to be adjusted. Certainly jounalists can be bloggers, but not all bloggers are journalists. Anyone and everyone has their own blog. Some are definatley more qualified than others. Where should the real dividing line be drawn? (in a perfect world)

I too like the insurance idea, but for the casual blogger is it practical? Is it right for the courts to promote society that is so hyper sensitive. One where everyone is so concerned of retrobution that we allow fear to cause everyone to become paralized

Carlsbad Village Street Faire, May 2nd, 2010 ( http://carlsbadhomesforsalenow.com/carlsbad-homes-... )

Melissa Ford 5 pts

When I think about the New York Times weekend magazine--are those writers journalists? If they are, then certainly most bloggers I know are also journalists. And posts that go beyond the person's personal experience even more so.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

Melissa Ford 5 pts

Thank you, Shellee, for weighing in. And I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

It is good advice to get insurance.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

jannajoy25@hotmail.com 5 pts

Wow! This is a question I have not considered until reading your article, but one to give serious thought to as I continue to get more serious about blogging.

I don't considered myself a journalist but have written several posts in a journalistic style.

Janna - Can also be found at The Adventure of Motherhood ( http://theadventureofmotherhood.blogspot.com ).

shelleehale 5 pts

The good thing for me is that I did have insurance to cover defamation, you can view my interview on this here click on featured video http://vulnerablenews.com/

FrecklesAZ 5 pts

At the very least, bloggers should cover themselves with defamation insurance. Home owners should be able to get it as a very affordable add-on. Call your renters/home-owners insurance carrier today (and if you don't have renters insurance, get it--my provider's renters coverage is MUCH better in many ways than the mandatory home-owners, plus it really isn't overly expensive).
FrecklesAZ

Melissa Ford 5 pts

It's a good question, and I'm not sure what laws are out there that protect citizens--if any. Hence why this blogger is currently being sued for slander by posting these statements about this company. If there were other laws, surely they would have been used to protect her during this second trial?

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

mashadutoit 5 pts

To this issue as outlined here:

"Yet bloggers often act as journalists -- journalists outside the mainstream media -- and this ruling could muzzle ordinary citizens from using their voice to point out the foibles of companies without protection from lawsuits."

Surely the question should not be whether bloggers are journalists who can evoke "journalist protecting laws", but whether ordinary citizens (as opposed to journalists) have any protection to their right to "whistle-blow" or state their opinion of experiences in public?

What I'm saying is to what extent are these shield laws the only protection that a blogger might have?

In other words, in this new word of "publish yourself easily" - should we not be letting go of "are you a journalist" and "what makes a journalist a journalist" and rather look at "how do we protect freedom of speech online, and how do we protect against abuse of this freedom?"