Bloggers aren’t Journalists: Federal Judge Awards 2.5 Million in Damages to Plaintiff
The internet is changing and changing rapidly. The latest ruling by a federal district judge is sending shock waves through the blogging community, although it probably shouldn’t until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the Crystal Cox ruling, or these type cases become an epidemic, with the blogger losing regularly.
In a case that’s sending a frightening message to the blogger community, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that a blogger must pay $2.5 million to an investment firm she wrote about — because she isn’t a real journalist, says Mashable.
As reported by Seattle Weekly, Judge Marco A. Hernandez said Crystal Cox, who runs several blogs, wasn’t entitled to the protections afforded to journalists — specifically, Oregon’s media shield law for sources — because she wasn’t “affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”
That begs the question: If a blog or website is in fact affiliated with any of the above does that make the blogger a journalist? For example many sites have agreements with newspapers, magazines, and etc. Are they protected?
The Obsidian Finance Group sued Cox in January for $10 million for writing several blog posts critical of the company and its co-founder, Kevin Padrick. Obsidian argued that the writing was defamatory. Cox represented herself in court.
Cox representing herself was her first mistake which no doubt led to lots more. He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client says an old proverb, author unknown.
The judge threw out all but one of the blog posts cited, focusing on just one (this one), which was more factual in tone than the rest of her writing. Cox said that was because she was being fed information from an inside source, whom she refused to name.
Without the source, she couldn’t prove the information in the post was true — and thus, according to the judge, she didn’t qualify for Oregon’s media shield law since she wasn’t employed by a media establishment. In the court’s eyes, she was a blogger, not a journalist. The penalty: $2.5 million.
The debate over whether bloggers are journalists has been going on for years, but the consensus has been largely settled — on the opposite side of what Judge Hernandez has ruled. Attorney Bruce E. H. Johnson, who wrote the media shield laws in next-door Washington State, told Seattle Weekly that those laws would have protected Cox had her case been tried in Washington.
In a more high-profile case, an editor from Gizmodo escaped criminal charges after revealing to the world an iPhone prototype lost in a bar. Although police raided the California home of editor Jason Chen in 2010, the case was cited as a test for that state’s media shield law, and the district attorney said publicly this year that no charges would be filed to anyone from the site.
When discussing the case, Steve Jobs told The Wall Street Journal‘s Walt Mossberg that he believed Chen was “a guy,” not a journalist. Mossberg countered that he himself was a blogger, and that he thought bloggers were journalists. (You can see the exchange in this video, at about the 16:00 mark.)
Many thanks to Mashable for parts of this story. Are bloggers the same as journalists? And if not, what is the dividing line? Do you think Crystal Cox crossed the line? Share your thoughts about this case and Crystal Cox in the comments section.
I would say if you are not affiliated with a media organization, stay away from anonymous sources.
Exactly. If I have a quote, I make sure I’m covered nine ways to Sunday. In interviews I always make certain that my editor can verify the subject, and if I use a quote, I am certain to let the person understand they will be named, and contacted, if necessary. Or, I just claim God told me.
I’m big on the God thing too Erin 🙂
Something journalists do that most bloggers do not is that they get out there, talk to people, see things and then write about them and let the facts lead them to the truth. That sounds like what the lady who got popped for 2.5m was doing here. On the one hand the 4th estate should be provided an extra level of protection from defamation claims, whereas any ol’ Joe with an internet connection should not be allowed to engage in character assassination and then claim he is a journalist and can’t be sued for defamation. Hard call. If I were a justice and writing a legal opinion on this, I would say that the matter would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the tone and product. The question would be, how journalistic is the offending piece? Does it match the standards of what objective journalism should be, or is it just a shrill screed written primarily to do a person harm.
Good points here Lawyer. I take great care with what we publish, and hope we don’t defame anyone, except politicians who are fair game.
Ha Erin! Making crap up is better than the crap that’s supposed to be real. More made up crap please. You are my favorite writer.
I’m in deep, deep trouble. WAIT. Satire is protected. So, if I just make crap up but it’s funny, I’m golden. Plus, Mike would protect us! 😀
LOL! Yes Erin Mike would definitely protect you 🙂
I’m an opinionated old lady… so sue me.
I hear that Liz!!! Same here, except for the lady part of course 🙂