An Associated Press report said “Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.
“U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.”
Although, the ruling is not expected to really tame the free-wheeling environment of digital media which includes blogs (short for “web log”, online sites usually set up by individuals containing their articles which could cover any topic and form), it would be a useful distinction for new media users.
According to news reports, Cox styles herself as an “investigative blogger.” She has created numerous websites with names like “obsidianfinancesucks.com,” “bankruptcytrusteefraud.com,” and “oregonshyster.com,” in which she accused Padrick and Obsidian of misconduct in their handling of a bankruptcy case.
During the trial, she was asked to name her sources and she sought protection in the Oregon’s shield law not compelling media to produce sources.
Hernandez, the judge, said Cox cannot claim that protection because she is not a journalist. He enumerated his understanding of the attributes of a journalist which Cox did not possess: (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story.”
In a statement quoted by media, Cox did not exactly deny that her writings did not meet basic journalistic standards. She said,””My intensions are the highest and best. I know I am sometimes over the top or a little bit vulgar. But I encourage people not to listen to me or him but to look at the documents and make their own decision based on that.”
In the Philippines, there are over half a million blogs.
The growth of blogs has somewhat reached a plateau with the coming of Facebook and Twitter. But it is no less vibrant. There have been legal cases involving blogs, the most notorious of which was the one by Brian Gorrel, an Australian gay who blogged about the sordid happenings in Manila’s high society circle after his Filipino boyfriend absconded with a large sum of his money.
In new media fora I’ve attended, bloggers are very sensitive about what they claim are “discrimination” by mainstream journalists claiming that many times, they have scooped media in a number of happenings.
Except for the number one attribute that Judge Hernandez enumerated, I agree with him in the requirements of journalism.
Journalists adhere to four basic things in disseminating information: truthfulness or accuracy; independence; fairness; humaneness (minimizing harm); accountability.
Stories that come out in the mainstream media undergo a process of verification, which sometimes is not easy.
Journalists in the Philippines also cannot be compelled to reveal their sources. Republic Act No. 53 known as the Sotto Law provides that “The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.”
I’m a journalist who blogs. I’d like to share these words by American journalists Marvin Kalb and Ted Koppel from their book, “In the National Interest”:
“Being a reporter is a little like being a missionary and being a missionary is a lot like being a teacher. A reporter carries the words. It isn’t sacred. There is no book of truth. He is fallible. But he doesn’t write a story because some group wants him to or even because his country says he should.
“He writes because he thinks he has discovered something new and interesting and the information is liberating. Liberating in the sense that the information illuminates the world and greases the wheels of democracy. That’s why the freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment.”
The First Amendment states that no law should be passed abridging the freedom of the press which is also in the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution.
“The First Amendment states that no law should be passed abridging the freedom of the press which is also in the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution”
that is right that the legislature can not enact law abridging the freedom of speech, but decision handed by courts (common law) can penalize an individual for damages that Freedom of speech could cause without justification…and for the Blogger a Big $2.5 millions.
Whereas, Section 1 of Canada’s Charter of Rights States that:
. The Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
and that Laws that limits every rights and freedoms must be reasonable and must passed the challenge of it being able to be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society with the precedent setting Oakes Tests as the basis…If not, that law is null and void…(not like the decision of the Corona Court that nullified the Provision in the Constitution in regards to the Prohibition period and then decide that that decision was justified) and wondering why the Pnoy administration is working on his impeachment.
medyo na shock lang ako sa title hehe. i’m a blogger and never na i considered myself a journalist. i’m not sure if bloggers in the Philippines think that way.
Judge Hernandez’s list implies that you need some sort of blessing to be a journalist, and apparently an employee. Someone has to pay you. Absurd.
1. The judge’s decision protects mainstream media, gives it a privilege, the shield law, that discriminates against alternative news sources without any regard to the substance of the reporting. It focuses only on the reporter’s affiliation and accreditation by mainstream media.
2. The internet has democratized news reporting. It is a positive step in the evolution of information sharing. The judge’s decision reverses progress in favor of mainstream media.
3. The main difference between bloggers and mainstream media journalists are affiliation and accreditation. Nothing more.
Yun mga non-journalists na nagsasubmit ng stories sa “Bayan mo i-patrol mo” at sa CNN citizens’ report progtam, journalists ba yun na protektado ng “shield law”? Yun mga nag-upload lang sa blog nila o kaya sa YouTube dahil ayaw nilang dumaan sa established media, paano na sila?
4. Yun seven criteria na ipinataw ng judge. Ano dun ang ginagawa o hindi ginagawa ng mainstream media na ginagawa o hindi ginagawa ng blogger.
5. A news organization is not a guarantee of truthfulness nor of objective reporting neither is a blog a sure sign that the report is biased and not vetted enough.
6. Let’s focus on the substance of a news report, whether from mainstream media or from blogs, and not on the affiliation or accreditation of said reporter.
I’ve had a vigorous e-mail exchange with a veteran journalist, Gil Santos, over this. Like Ellen, I agree with most but not all of the seven standards given by the judge with which to define a journalist; I think standard #2 can be problematic. It discriminates against citizen journalists and discourages independent investigative reporting. Moreover, I think “recognized news entity” must be defined. Who recognizes these news entities? What kind of entities should be recognized? Should there be a difference between The Economist and The Diplomat or ABS-CBN and The Huffington Post?
At the end of the day, I think, like what MB said, the substance of the news report must be the sole basis of granting First Amendment/Bill of Rights protections. Adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest is not limited to those affiliated with mainstream news outlets, in my opinion. In fact, many mainstream outlets don’t even satisfy Judge Cox’s standards. The Daily Tribune is an example, lol.
The opinion (decision sa atin) must be posted, so that the judge’s decision can be read in context. I emailed it to Ellen.
The decision was interpreting Oregon law, which provided as follows:
The definition is narrow, because the Oregon statute under which Cox sought refuge defined it narrowly. It protects media from being forced to disclose its source of info. Cox was seeking to find shelter under that law, in a defamation case against her.
She was trying to avoid being forced to reveal her “source” (quotes by the Court). Sa totoo lang, wala siyang source. So palusot lang yon, and it was really a malicious post (no attempt to ascertain the veracity of the “news”).
Cox maligned a bankruptcy trustee (similar to a court-appointed commissioner in the Philippines), about a case that was not public, nor publicly discussed. The trustee was a quiet non-publicity seeking figure. Mere employment in, or by the government does not make one a public figure.
The opinion reiterated Supreme Court decisions that declare that some people who thrust themselves in the limelight to espouse certain issues are “public figures” with regard to those issues, for purposes of defamation laws, and may be fair game for journalistic focus (Leah Navarro of Black and White, Dante Jimenez, etc.).
First Amendment rights were not involved here, only protection under Oregon statues. The blogger had no First Amendment right to publicly malign one involved in a privately litigated case, because the litigants were not public figures, nor was the trustee.
The issue of the trustee being a public figure came into play, because after not being able to come under Oregon’s definition of “media”, only for this law, not for First Amendment rights, Cox sought refuge under the First Amendment by claiming that the trustee is a “public figure”.
Read it. It is actually a well-crafted decision, and it provides gems of First Amendment quotes (which are not applicable to Cox).
The opinion only disposed of a motion for summary judgment; Cox was asking that the case be dismissed, because there was nothing to try, since her “news” was privileged.
The opinion was not a decision on the merits. It only allowed the case to go forward – meaning, that trial will be held, where Cox may still provide evidence of the privileged nature of her blog item, or even prove the truth of the blog item (truth is a defense in defamation).
Relax lang mga defenders of freedom. Walang masama sa decision.
To me i believe the ruling is discriminatory…Journalist is not more equal than anyone, but since the law in every land is different even with the Constitutional Guarantees on the Freedom of Press and of the Speech, Statutory limitations in every jurisdiction could apply..First amendment states that no law shall be paased abridging the Freedom of the Press but it does not prohibit laws that penalize its abuse…and that should apply to all as in every Constitution and Bill of Rights,Equality is also guaranteed…
If someone told me a story and then i retold a story in my blog of FB page, do i automatically become a journalist?
If I saw an incident and wrote a report, those that already make me a journalist?
Of course not.
Ellen mentioned the categories of what journalist have to abide by to be considered one.
Snv, thanks and I agree there is no violation of freedom. I’ve looked at Cox blog and its really just a website bashing people. No citations, no proofs, just some person spreading malice. Its not even a website of about a person’s comment on a topic. Just pure bashing.
#3 Pay = Sweldo = Professionalism. Meaning the person must consider being a journalist a job, which entails how you handle it and honor the trust that comes with the power of that role. Simple logic is because you don’t want to lose the job.
Example lang, say an IT person who has the knowhow and administrative rights to access everybody’s mailbox in his company’s email. He is not suppose to read email unless instructed by say HR to investigate or retrieve. If the IT person violates it out of whim, he is accountable. But a hacker who enters the system to read emails and then expose it has no accountability. Both cases however will still have a court case and appropriate punishment; of course mas mahirap yung kaso against the “hacker,” much like its harder to prosecute a “blogger.”
At the end of things, it boils down to honesty. Be it a journalist or just a blogger, if you lied you should be ready to face the proper punishment (in Cox case, she’s looking at a trial that may cause her $2.5M as punishment).
Veteran journalist Gil Santos gave me permission to use this comment of his in an e-group thread:
The Oregon Federal Judge is absolutely right.
A responsible professional journalist working for a legal organization or news network knows something the greater number of the so-called “citizen journalists” (alias bloggers) do not realize: the work of a journalist, before one can morally qualify as an honest journalist starts with the research or gathering the accurate data or information from first hand sources (as differentiated from “second hand sources” or gossipers or public relations spinners), then these are verified or vetted and edited (for accuracy, in context and truth) by his superiors (editors all the way to the top of the line of responsible editors) BEFORE the news is published for general public consumption. The normal run-of-the-mill bloggers do not have this organization nor money to undertake the data/information processing because he normally works alone and is generally biased or even have conflicts of interests.
The reason behind this is because the newspaper–as traditionally and still must be, known–is a public trust. The news organization, like the international wire services and reputable and reliable networks, owe allegiance to the truth first. National and government news agencies protect the interests of the State, and not necessarily the truth (which to most of them is highly relative). That is way the source of the news must be identified; and any conclusions of the opinion writer or column writers must be based on facts and logically arrived at. There are very few individual bloggers are experienced or practicing news persons who gather their information from their own organizations and are trusted by the news sources–because they are professional journalists.
I really want to point out that while journalists are not subject to the normal professional regulatory agencies of government–and are issued licenses and therefore not required to be government-licensed to practice their calling–they MUST be responsible and must work within the limits of the law in their work environment. Remember also that journalism is practiced within the context of the country’s culture and language.
All these must be pointed out to all students aspiring to be professional journalists. Honesty and commitment to TRUTH are not negotiable
I agree whole heartedly with Gil Santos.
@Vic – does that say a private party MUST, say, grant freedom to speech to another private party, though?
Similar read:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2011/no-sky-not-falling-explaining-decision-oregon