Bloggers and Journalists
An article in today’s Christian Science Monitor asks some interesting (if not terribly original) questions about bloggers — specifically, ‘Are they journalists?’
What I found disturbing however, is the assumptions being made by the article about “real” journalists.
“Are they journalists with an obligation to check facts, run corrections, and disclose conflicts of interest?” the article asks, “Or are they ordinary opinion-slingers, like barbers or bartenders, with no special responsibilities - or rights?”
The assumption I’m referring to is that journalists are somehow different that regular folks — that they have a separate set of laws, or that there’s some body (government, presumably) that gives them official recognition.
There’s nothing preventing a blogger from writing “Hillary Clinton collapsed because she’s pregnant!” There’s also nothing preventing The New York Times from doing the same.
What stops “real” journalists is the desire to be taken seriously, and the desire to avoid libel suits. If the Times started printing nonsense, people would stop reading it. (And some people have.)
If the Times started printing libelous statements, it would find itself on the business end of a lawsuit.
But there is not separate law requiring either journalists or bloggers to print the truth. Both are subject to libel suits, both are subject to a readership that can disappear when they lose credibility.
Does the National Enquirer always print the truth? Of course not; Elvis is dead. But its readers don’t mind a bit of fantasy, and as long as the Enquirer doesn’t libel someone, it’s free — like anyone — to print what it wants and to try to sell it to people.
Heck, it’s even free to print libelous things, as is The New York Times, and as is any blogger. But it’s also going to get sued in civil (not criminal) court.
The question “Are bloggers journalists?” is a misleading one. A journalist is anyone who shares the news or information with others.
By implying that The New York Times enjoys a special status — other than that afforded it by its reputation and the printing and delivery system it has set up — you also imply that someone has to confer some kind of legal “you-are-a-journalist” status to make it so.
And that’s a road we had better not travel down.
(Note: There’s a difference with th idea of “press credentials.” Any organization is allowed, of course, to confer press status on anyone it chooses.
When I used to work at the Internet World trade shows, we discussed who we would give those credentials to — that is, who we’d let in free. There were some pretty shady characters asking for them, but we had the right to say “No.” We also had the right to say “No” to NBC.)
