

NJ Supreme Court Judge: "New media should not be confused with news media" - cwan
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/0121149190.shtml

======
allenp
I was interested in finding out more about this article there is a more
detailed write up on law.com -
[http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432065544&Blog...](http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432065544&Blogger_Sued_For_Defamation_Cant_Invoke_Shield_Law_Says_NJ_Judge)

I think this is where she went wrong: "Hale weighed in on the subject,
accusing Too Much Media of engaging in fraud and "illegal and unethical use of
technology," violating New Jersey's Identity Theft Protection Act and
profiting from stolen e-mail addresses. She also said the company's principals
"may threaten your life if you report any of the specifics."

So first of all, she has a blog but that is not where her comments were - they
were on a forum. Second, she is claiming this company is using click fraud to
not pay its affiliates and saying they are stealing email addresses. I don't
get how being a journalist would help her in this case. Maybe instead her
defense should have been proving her accusations?

------
anigbrowl
It's hard to argue that a mere website comment equates to news reportage - but
first, let's take a look at the weather.

Seriously, I am not impressed with this author's argument, which goes so far
to say that an individual can "simply set themselves up as a 'news
organization'". This is an absurd position, akin to saying that talking as you
walk down the street is like being a broadcaster because others can hear. He
then goes on to say there should be federal shield law; a reasonable request
on its face, but not if it's going to apply to every random posting on the
internet.

It's been cited in relation to the Gizmodo flap, but to be honest i can't see
the relevance. I'm no lover of that blog but I do think they're journalists,
just not very good ones.

~~~
pmccool
Maybe, but it seems to follow from this judgement that you can write the exact
same thing, with the same number of readers and the same impact on the public
interest and get treated differently depending on whether you're part of a
"news organization" or not. I don't follow the justification for that...

~~~
anigbrowl
You don't have to be part of an existing media organization; there's a
fundamental difference between publishing (eg by having your own blog) and
just dumping it out there as a comment. With your own blog, you're staking out
territory and making a claim to provide something - at least assuming you
didn't set it up to disseminate this one thing, in which case it might be
wiser to use wikileaks or somesuch. And then, there's a difference between
just dumping stuff in public view and acting like an actual journalist by
providing supplementary information, context and reaction from involved
parties or expert commentators.

I'm a big fan of using the internet for journalism, but to claim that title
you've got to demonstrate a commitment to editorial standards and accuracy.

